ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
(PROPOSED)
W. OF BERNARDO AVE., N. OF
RISING HILL
ESCONDIDO CA 92029 891192570 uu-RCRA NON GEN-879456010-aa DAN TRIEGER FELICITA ROAD ESCONDIDO CA 92029 879456010 EPA Handler ID | Recycler Activity?: CAC003040318 | NO
CALSITES
RCRA NON GEN
Unplottable Summary
Exhibit C
460
Attachment "3"
738
Item8.
167 erisinfo.com | Environmental Risk Information Services Order No: 25030401545 h-Unplottable Report
Site: BERNARDO ELEMENTARY SCHOOL (PROPOSED)
W. OF BERNARDO AVE., N. OF RISING HILL ESCONDIDO CA 92029 uu-CALSITES-891192570-bb ID No: 37010001 Assembly:
Status Date: 01/10/2000 Senate:
NPL: N Region: 4
Tier: Region Name: LONG BEACH
Fund: County Co: 37
Access : Facility County: SAN DIEGO
Access Code: NOT REPORTED Lat Deg: 0
Cortese: Lat Min: 0
Hrscore: Lat Sec: 0
Hrsdate: Lat Dir:
Groundwater Contam: Long Deg: 0
GW Code: NOT REPORTED Long Min: 0
No Sources: 0 Long Sec: 0
RWQCB Name: Long Dir:
Branch Name: SOUTHERN CA. - A Llmethod:
Staff: JABRAHAM Lldesc:
Senior: HSALLOUM
Status Name: VOLUNTARY CLEANUP PROGRAM
Type Name: PROPOSED SCHOOL SITE PROPERTY
Lead Name: DEPT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL
SIC Name: AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION - CROPS
Filename: BERNARDO ELEMENTARY SCHOOL (PROPOSED)
Comments:
DTSC entered into a Voluntary Cleanup Agreement with Escondido Union School District to provide oversight for a Preliminary Endangerment Assessment for the proposed Bernardo Elementary School site.
Background:
Site: DAN TRIEGER
FELICITA ROAD ESCONDIDO CA 92029 uu-RCRA NON GEN-879456010-bb EPA Handler ID: CAC003040318 Gen Status Universe: No Report
Contact Name: DAN TRIEGER
Contact Address: FELICITA ROAD , , ESCONDIDO , CA, 92029 , Contact Phone No and Ext: 619-850-9190
Contact Email: [email protected]
Contact Country:
County Name: SAN DIEGO
EPA Region: 09
Land Type:
Receive Date: 20191024
Location Latitude:
Location Longitude:
Recycler Activity?: NO
Recycler Activity Note: This facility has no indication of Recycling Activity.
Violation/Evaluation Summary
Note: NO RECORDS: As of Oct 2024, there are no Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement (violation) records associated with this facility (EPA ID).
Handler Summary
CALSITES
RCRA NON GEN
Unplottable Report
Exhibit C
461
Attachment "3"
739
Item8.
168 erisinfo.com | Environmental Risk Information Services Order No: 25030401545 Importer Activity: No
Mixed Waste Generator: No
Transporter Activity: No
Transfer Facility: No
Onsite Burner Exemption: No
Furnace Exemption: No
Underground Injection Activity: No
Commercial TSD: No
Used Oil Transporter: No
Used Oil Transfer Facility: No
Used Oil Processor: No
Used Oil Refiner: No
Used Oil Burner: No
Used Oil Market Burner: No
Used Oil Spec Marketer: No
Recycler Activity: No
Recycler Activity Without
Storage:
No
Hazardous Waste Handler Details
Sequence No: 1
Receive Date: 20191024
Handler Name: DAN TRIEGER
Source Type: Implementer
Federal Waste Generator Code: N
Generator Code Description: Not a Generator, Verified
Owner/Operator Details
Owner/Operator Ind: Current Owner Street No:
Type: Other Street 1: FELICITA ROAD
Name: DAN TRIEGER Street 2:
Date Became Current: City: ESCONDIDO
Date Ended Current: State: CA
Phone: 619-850-9190 Country:
Source Type: Implementer Zip Code: 92029
Owner/Operator Ind: Current Operator Street No:
Type: Other Street 1: FELICITA ROAD
Name: DAN TRIEGER Street 2:
Date Became Current: City: ESCONDIDO
Date Ended Current: State: CA
Phone: 619-850-9190 Country:
Source Type: Implementer Zip Code: 92029
Exhibit C
462
Attachment "3"
740
Item8.
169 erisinfo.com | Environmental Risk Information Services Order No: 25030401545 h-Appendix: Database Descriptions
Environmental Risk Information Services (ERIS) can search the following databases. The extent of historical information varies with each database and current information is determined by what is publicly available to ERIS at the time of update. ERIS updates databases as set out in ASTM Standard E1527-13 and E1527-21, Section 8.1.8 Sources of Standard Source Information:
"Government information from nongovernmental sources may be considered current if the source updates the information at least every 90 days, or, for information that is updated less frequently than quarterly by the government agency, within 90 days of the date the government agency makes the information available to the public." Standard Environmental Record Sources
Federal
National Priority List: rr-NPL-bb The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)'s National Priorities List (NPL) includes the most serious uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous waste sites identified for possible long-term remedial action under the Superfund program, based primarily on the score a site receives from EPA's Hazard Ranking System. A site must be on the NPL to receive money from the Superfund Trust Fund for remedial action. This data includes NPL sites represented as polygons, where available, that can be sourced from the EPA NPL Superfund Site Boundaries dataset, refreshed by the Shared Enterprise Geodata and Services (SEGS). These site boundaries represent the footprint of a whole site, the sum of all the Operable Units (OUs) and the current understanding of the full extent of contamination; for Federal Facility sites, the total site polygon may be the Facility boundary. As site investigation and remediation progress, OUs may be added, modified or refined. Data provided by external parties is not independently verified by EPA.
This boundary data is made available to the public strictly for informational purposes. Where there is no polygon boundary data available for a given site, the site is represented as a point.
Government Publication Date: Sep 25, 2024
National Priority List - Proposed: rr-PROPOSED NPL-bb Sites proposed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the state agency, or concerned citizens for addition to the National Priorities List (NPL) due to contamination by hazardous waste and identified by the EPA as a candidate for cleanup because it poses a risk to human health and/or the environment. Sites represented as polygons, where available, can be sourced from the EPA NPL Superfund Site Boundaries dataset, refreshed by the Shared Enterprise Geodata and Services (SEGS). These site boundaries represent the footprint of a whole site, the sum of all the Operable Units (OUs) and the current understanding of the full extent of contamination; for Federal Facility sites, the total site polygon may be the Facility boundary.
Data provided by external parties is not independently verified by EPA. This boundary data is made available to the public strictly for informational purposes. Where there is no polygon boundary data available for a given site, the site is represented as a point.
Government Publication Date: Sep 25, 2024
Deleted NPL: rr-DELETED NPL-bb Sites deleted from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)'s National Priorities List (NPL). The National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) establishes the criteria that the EPA uses to delete sites from the NPL. In accordance with 40 CFR 300.425.(e), sites may be deleted from the NPL where no further response is appropriate. Sites represented as polygons, where available, can be sourced from the EPA NPL Superfund Site Boundaries dataset, refreshed by the Shared Enterprise Geodata and Services (SEGS). These site boundaries represent the footprint of a whole site, the sum of all the Operable Units (OUs) and the current understanding of the full extent of contamination; for Federal Facility sites, the total site polygon may be the Facility boundary. Data provided by external parties is not independently verified by EPA. This boundary data is made available to the public strictly for informational purposes. Where there is no polygon boundary data available for a given site, the site is represented as a point.
Government Publication Date: Sep 25, 2024
NPL
PROPOSED NPL
DELETED NPL
Appendix: Database Descriptions
Exhibit C
463
Attachment "3"
741
Item8.
170 erisinfo.com | Environmental Risk Information Services Order No: 25030401545 SEMS List 8R Active Site Inventory: rr-SEMS-bb The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Superfund Program has deployed the Superfund Enterprise Management System (SEMS), which integrates multiple legacy systems into a comprehensive tracking and reporting tool. This inventory contains active sites evaluated by the Superfund program that are either proposed to be or are on the National Priorities List (NPL) as well as sites that are in the screening and assessment phase for possible inclusion on the NPL. The Active Site Inventory Report displays site and location information at active SEMS sites. An active site is one at which site assessment, removal, remedial, enforcement, cost recovery, or oversight activities are being planned or conducted. This data includes SEMS sites from the List 8R Active file as well as applicable sites from the EPA's Facility Registry Service map tool.
Government Publication Date: Oct 24, 2024
SEMS List 8R Archive Sites: rr-SEMS ARCHIVE-bb The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Superfund Enterprise Management System (SEMS) Archived Site Inventory displays site and location information at sites archived from SEMS. An archived site is one at which EPA has determined that assessment has been completed and no further remedial action is planned under the Superfund program at this time. This data includes sites from the List 8R Archived site file.
Government Publication Date: Oct 24, 2024
Inventory of Open Dumps, June 1985: rr-ODI-bb The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) provides for publication of an inventory of open dumps. The Act defines "open dumps" as facilities which do not comply with EPA's "Criteria for Classification of Solid Waste Disposal Facilities and Practices" (40 CFR 257).
Government Publication Date: Jun 1985
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Information System - CERCLIS:
rr-CERCLIS-bb Superfund is a program administered by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to locate, investigate, and clean up the worst hazardous waste sites throughout the United States. CERCLIS is a database of potential and confirmed hazardous waste sites at which the EPA Superfund program has some involvement. It contains sites that are either proposed to be or are on the National Priorities List (NPL) as well as sites that are in the screening and assessment phase for possible inclusion on the NPL. The EPA administers the Superfund program in cooperation with individual states and tribal governments; this database is made available by the EPA.
Government Publication Date: Oct 25, 2013
EPA Report on the Status of Open Dumps on Indian Lands: rr-IODI-bb Public Law 103-399, The Indian Lands Open Dump Cleanup Act of 1994, enacted October 22, 1994, identified congressional concerns that solid waste open dump sites located on American Indian or Alaska Native (AI/AN) lands threaten the health and safety of residents of those lands and contiguous areas. The purpose of the Act is to identify the location of open dumps on Indian lands, assess the relative health and environment hazards posed by those sites, and provide financial and technical assistance to Indian tribal governments to close such dumps in compliance with Federal standards and regulations or standards promulgated by Indian Tribal governments or Alaska Native entities.
Government Publication Date: Dec 31, 1998
CERCLIS - No Further Remedial Action Planned: rr-CERCLIS NFRAP-bb An archived site is one at which EPA has determined that assessment has been completed and no further remedial action is planned under the Superfund program at this time. The Archive designation means that, to the best of EPA's knowledge, assessment at a site has been completed and that EPA has determined no further steps will be taken to list this site on the National Priorities List (NPL). This decision does not necessarily mean that there is no hazard associated with a given site; it only means that, based upon available information, the location is not judged to be a potential NPL site.
Government Publication Date: Oct 25, 2013
CERCLIS Liens: rr-CERCLIS LIENS-bb A Federal Superfund lien exists at any property where EPA has incurred Superfund costs to address contamination ("Superfund site") and has provided notice of liability to the property owner. A Federal CERCLA ("Superfund") lien can exist by operation of law at any site or property at which EPA has spent Superfund monies. This database is made available by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This database was provided by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Refer to SEMS LIEN as the current data source for Superfund Liens.
Government Publication Date: Jan 30, 2014
RCRA CORRACTS-Corrective Action: rr-RCRA CORRACTS-bb RCRA Info is the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) comprehensive information system, providing access to data supporting the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 and the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984. At these sites, the Corrective Action Program ensures that cleanups occur. EPA and state regulators work with facilities and communities to design remedies based on the contamination, geology, and anticipated use unique to each site.
Government Publication Date: Oct 21, 2024
SEMS
SEMS ARCHIVE
ODI
CERCLIS
IODI
CERCLIS NFRAP
CERCLIS LIENS
RCRA CORRACTS
Exhibit C
464
Attachment "3"
742
Item8.
171 erisinfo.com | Environmental Risk Information Services Order No: 25030401545 RCRA non-CORRACTS TSD Facilities: rr-RCRA TSD-bb RCRA Info is the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) comprehensive information system, providing access to data supporting the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 and the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984. This database includes NonCorrective Action sites that have indicated engagement in the treatment, storage, or disposal of hazardous waste which requires a RCRA hazardous waste permit.
Government Publication Date: Oct 21, 2024
RCRA Generator List: rr-RCRA LQG-bb RCRA Info is the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) comprehensive information system, providing access to data supporting the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 and the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984. RCRA Info replaces the data recording and reporting abilities of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System (RCRIS) and the Biennial Reporting System (BRS). A hazardous waste generator is any person or site whose processes and actions create hazardous waste (see 40 CFR 260.10). Large Quantity Generators (LQGs) generate 1,000 kilograms per month or more of hazardous waste or more than one kilogram per month of acutely hazardous waste.
Government Publication Date: Oct 21, 2024
RCRA Small Quantity Generators List: rr-RCRA SQG-bb RCRA Info is the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) comprehensive information system, providing access to data supporting the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 and the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984. RCRA Info replaces the data recording and reporting abilities of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System (RCRIS) and the Biennial Reporting System (BRS). A hazardous waste generator is any person or site whose processes and actions create hazardous waste (see 40 CFR 260.10). Small Quantity Generators (SQGs) generate more than 100 kilograms, but less than 1,000 kilograms, of hazardous waste per month.
Government Publication Date: Oct 21, 2024
RCRA Very Small Quantity Generators List: rr-RCRA VSQG-bb RCRA Info is the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) comprehensive information system, providing access to data supporting the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 and the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984. A hazardous waste generator is any person or site whose processes and actions create hazardous waste (see 40 CFR 260.10). Very Small Quantity Generators (VSQG) generate 100 kilograms or less per month of hazardous waste, or one kilogram or less per month of acutely hazardous waste. Additionally, VSQG may not accumulate more than 1,000 kilograms of hazardous waste at any time.
Government Publication Date: Oct 21, 2024
RCRA Non-Generators: rr-RCRA NON GEN-bb RCRA Info is the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) comprehensive information system, providing access to data supporting the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 and the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984. RCRA Info replaces the data recording and reporting abilities of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System (RCRIS) and the Biennial Reporting System (BRS). A hazardous waste generator is any person or site whose processes and actions create hazardous waste (see 40 CFR 260.10). Non-Generators do not presently generate hazardous waste.
Government Publication Date: Oct 21, 2024
RCRA Sites with Controls: rr-RCRA CONTROLS-bb
List of Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) facilities with institutional controls in place. RCRA gives the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) the authority to control hazardous waste from the "cradle-to-grave." This includes the generation, transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste. RCRA also set forth a framework for the management of non-hazardous solid wastes. The 1986 amendments to RCRA enabled EPA to address environmental problems that could result from underground tanks storing petroleum and other hazardous substances.
Government Publication Date: Oct 21, 2024
Federal Engineering Controls-ECs: rr-FED ENG-bb
List of Engineering controls (ECs) made availabe by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ECs encompass a variety of engineered and constructed physical barriers (e.g., soil capping, sub-surface venting systems, mitigation barriers, fences) to contain and/or prevent exposure to contamination on a property. The EC listing includes remedy component data from Superfund decision documents for applicable sites on the final or deleted on the National Priorities List (NPL); and sites with a Superfund Alternative Approach (SAA) Agreement in place. The only sites included that are not on the NPL; proposed for NPL; or removed from proposed NPL, are those with an SAA Agreement in place.
Government Publication Date: Jan 29, 2025
RCRA TSD
RCRA LQG
RCRA SQG
RCRA VSQG
RCRA NON GEN
RCRA CONTROLS
FED ENG
Exhibit C
465
Attachment "3"
743
Item8.
172 erisinfo.com | Environmental Risk Information Services Order No: 25030401545 Federal Institutional Controls- ICs: rr-FED INST-bb
List of Institutional controls (ICs) made available by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ICs are non-engineered instruments, such as administrative and legal controls, that help minimize the potential for human exposure to contamination and/or protect the integrity of the remedy. Although it is EPA's expectation that treatment or engineering controls will be used to address principal threat wastes and that groundwater will be returned to its beneficial use whenever practicable, ICs play an important role in site remedies because they reduce exposure to contamination by limiting land or resource use and guide human behavior at a site. The IC listing includes remedy component data from Superfund decision documents for applicable sites on the final or deleted on the National Priorities List (NPL); and sites with a Superfund Alternative Approach (SAA) Agreement in place. The only sites included that are not on the NPL; proposed for NPL; or removed from proposed NPL, are those with an SAA Agreement in place.
Government Publication Date: Jan 29, 2025
Land Use Control Information System: rr-LUCIS-bb The LUCIS database is maintained by the U.S. Department of the Navy and contains information for former Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) properties across the United States.
Government Publication Date: Sep 1, 2006
Institutional Control Boundaries at NPL sites: rr-NPL IC-bb These boundaries of Institutional Control areas at sites on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) National Priorities List (NPL), or as Proposed or Deleted, are sourced from the EPA NPL Superfund Site Boundaries dataset, refreshed by the Shared Enterprise Geodata and Services (SEGS). The EPA's NPL includes the most serious uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous waste sites identified for possible long-term remedial action under the Superfund program. Institutional controls are non-engineered instruments such as administrative and legal controls that help minimize the potential for human exposure to contamination and/or protect the integrity of the remedy. Data provided by external parties is not independently verified by EPA. This boundary data is made available to the public strictly for informational purposes.
Government Publication Date: Sep 25, 2024
Emergency Response Notification System: rr-ERNS 1982 TO 1986-bb Database of oil and hazardous substances spill reports controlled by the National Response Center. The primary function of the National Response Center is to serve as the sole national point of contact for reporting oil, chemical, radiological, biological, and etiological discharges into the environment anywhere in the United States and its territories.
Government Publication Date: 1982-1986
Emergency Response Notification System: rr-ERNS 1987 TO 1989-bb Database of oil and hazardous substances spill reports controlled by the National Response Center. The primary function of the National Response Center is to serve as the sole national point of contact for reporting oil, chemical, radiological, biological, and etiological discharges into the environment anywhere in the United States and its territories.
Government Publication Date: 1987-1989
Emergency Response Notification System: rr-ERNS-bb Database of oil and hazardous substances spill reports made available by the United States Coast Guard National Response Center (NRC). The NRC fields initial reports for pollution and railroad incidents and forwards that information to appropriate federal/state agencies for response. These data contain initial incident data that has not been validated or investigated by a federal/state response agency.
Government Publication Date: Dec 31, 2024
The Assessment, Cleanup and Redevelopment Exchange System (ACRES) Brownfield Database: rr-FED BROWNFIELDS-bb Brownfields are real property, the expansion, redevelopment, or reuse of which may be complicated by the presence or potential presence of a hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant. Cleaning up and reinvesting in these properties protects the environment, reduces blight, and takes development pressures off greenspaces and working lands. This data is provided by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and includes Brownfield sites from the Cleanups in My Community (CIMC) web application.
Government Publication Date: Feb 7, 2024
FEMA Underground Storage Tank Listing: rr-FEMA UST-bb The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) of the Department of Homeland Security maintains a list of FEMA owned underground storage tanks.
Government Publication Date: Dec 31, 2017
FED INST
LUCIS
NPL IC
ERNS 1982 TO 1986
ERNS 1987 TO 1989
ERNS
FED BROWNFIELDS
FEMA UST
Exhibit C
466
Attachment "3"
744
Item8.
173 erisinfo.com | Environmental Risk Information Services Order No: 25030401545 Facility Response Plan: rr-FRP-bb This listing contains facilities that have submitted Facility Response Plans (FRPs) to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Facilities that could reasonably be expected to cause "substantial harm" to the environment by discharging oil into or on navigable waters are required to prepare and submit FRPs. Harm is determined based on total oil storage capacity, secondary containment and age of tanks, oil transfer activities, history of discharges, proximity to a public drinking water intake or sensitive environments. This listing includes FRP facilities from an applicable EPA FOIA file and Homeland Infrastructure Foundation-Level Data (HIFLD) data file.
Government Publication Date: Jan 9, 2024
Delisted Facility Response Plans: rr-DELISTED FRP-bb Facilities that once appeared in - and have since been removed from - the list of facilities that have submitted Facility Response Plans (FRP) to EPA.
Facilities that could reasonably be expected to cause "substantial harm" to the environment by discharging oil into or on navigable waters are required to prepare and submit Facility Response Plans (FRPs). Harm is determined based on total oil storage capacity, secondary containment and age of tanks, oil transfer activities, history of discharges, proximity to a public drinking water intake or sensitive environments.
Government Publication Date: Jan 9, 2024
Historical Gas Stations: rr-HIST GAS STATIONS-bb This historic directory of service stations is provided by the Cities Service Company. The directory includes Cities Service filling stations that were located throughout the United States in 1930.
Government Publication Date: Jul 1, 1930
Petroleum Refineries: rr-REFN-bb This list of petroleum refineries is sourced from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), Refinery Capacity Report. The listing includes operating and idle petroleum refineries (including new refineries under construction) and refineries shut down during the previous year. The geographic area the report covers is the 50 States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, and other U.S. possessions. Per the EIA, the facility location data represents the approximate location based on research of publicly available information from sources such as Federal agencies, company websites, and satellite images on public websites.
Government Publication Date: Oct 31, 2024
Petroleum Product and Crude Oil Rail Terminals: rr-BULK TERMINAL-bb A list of petroleum product and crude oil rail terminals from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), as well as petroleum terminals sourced from Oak Ridge National Laboratory hosted by the Homeland Infrastructure Foundation-Level Database. Data includes operable bulk petroleum product terminals with a total bulk shell storage capacity of 50,000 barrels or more, and/or the ability to receive volumes from tanker, barge, or pipeline; also rail terminals handling the loading and unloading of crude oil with activity between 2017 and 2018. EIA petroleum product terminal data comes from the EIA815 Bulk Terminal and Blender Report, which includes working, shell in operation, and shell idle for several major product groupings.
Government Publication Date: Oct 31, 2024
LIEN on Property: rr-SEMS LIEN-bb The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Superfund Enterprise Management System (SEMS) provides Lien details on applicable properties, such as the Superfund lien on property activity, the lien property information, and the parties associated with the lien.
Government Publication Date: Oct 24, 2024
Superfund Decision Documents: rr-SUPERFUND ROD-bb This database contains a list of decision documents for Superfund sites. Decision documents serve to provide the reasoning for the choice of (or) changes to a Superfund Site cleanup plan. The decision documents include completed Records of Decision (ROD), ROD Amendments, Explanations of Significant Differences (ESD) for active and archived sites stored in the Superfund Enterprise Management System (SEMS), along with other associated memos and files. This information is maintained and made available by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Government Publication Date: Oct 24, 2024
State
State Response Sites: rr-RESPONSE-bb A list of identified confirmed release sites where the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) is involved in remediation, either in a lead or oversight capacity. These confirmed release sites are generally high-priority and high potential risk. This database serves a purpose similar to that of the federal NPL, functioning as a state-level counterpart for prioritizing cleanup efforts at hazardous substance release sites.
Government Publication Date: Dec 10, 2025
FRP
DELISTED FRP
HIST GAS STATIONS
REFN
BULK TERMINAL
SEMS LIEN
SUPERFUND ROD
RESPONSE
Exhibit C
467
Attachment "3"
745
Item8.
174 erisinfo.com | Environmental Risk Information Services Order No: 25030401545 EnviroStor Database: rr-ENVIROSTOR-bb The EnviroStor Data Management System is made available by the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). Includes Corrective Action sites, Tiered Permit sites, Historical Sites and Evaluation/Investigation sites. This database serves a purpose similar to that of the federal Superfund Enterprise Management System (SEMS), functioning as a state-level counterpart for tracking potential hazardous substance release sites.
Government Publication Date: Dec 10, 2025
Delisted State Response Sites: rr-DELISTED ENVS-bb Sites removed from the list of State Response Sites made available by the EnviroStor Data Management System, Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC).
Government Publication Date: Jan 31, 2025
Solid Waste Information System (SWIS): rr-SWF/LF-bb The Solid Waste Information System (SWIS) database made available by the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) contains information on solid waste facilities, operations, and disposal sites throughout the State of California. The types of facilities found in this database include landfills, transfer stations, material recovery facilities, composting sites, transformation facilities, waste tire sites, and closed disposal sites.
Government Publication Date: Oct 26, 2024
Solid Waste Disposal Sites with Waste Constituents Above Hazardous Waste Levels: rr-SWRCB SWF-bb This is a list of solid waste disposal sites identified by California State Water Resources Control Board with waste constituents above hazardous waste levels outside the waste management unit.
Government Publication Date: Sep 20, 2006
Waste Management Unit Database: rr-WMUD-bb The Waste Management Unit Database System tracks and inventories waste management units. CCR Title 27 contains criteria stating that Waste Management Units are classified according to their ability to contain wastes. Containment shall be determined by geology, hydrology, topography, climatology, and other factors relating to the ability of the Unit to protect water quality. Water Code Section 13273.1 requires that operators submit a water quality solid waste assessment test (SWAT) report to address leak status. The WMUDS was last updated by the State Water Resources control board in 2000.
Government Publication Date: Jan 1, 2000
EnviroStor Hazardous Waste Facilities: rr-HWP-bb A list of hazardous waste facilities including permitted, post-closure and historical facilities found in the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) EnviroStor database.
Government Publication Date: Dec 10, 2025
Sites Listed in the Solid Waste Assessment Test (SWAT) Program Report: rr-SWAT-bb In a 1993 Memorandum of Understanding, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) agreed to submit a comprehensive report on the Solid Waste Assessment Test (SWAT) Program to the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB). This report summarizes the work completed to date on the SWAT Program, and addresses both the impacts that leakage from solid waste disposal sites (SWDS) may have upon waters of the State and the actions taken to address such leakage.
Government Publication Date: Dec 31, 1995
Construction and Demolition Debris Recyclers: rr-C&D DEBRIS RECY-bb This listing of Construction and Demolition Debris Recyclers is maintained by the California Intergrated Waste Management Board-common C&D materials include lumber, drywall, metals, masonry (brick, concrete, etc.), carpet, plastic, pipe, rocks, dirt, paper, cardboard, or green waste related to land development.
Government Publication Date: Jun 20, 2018
Recycling Centers: rr-RECYCLING-bb This list of Certified Recycling Centers that are operating under the state of California's Beverage Container Recycling Program is maintained by the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery.
Government Publication Date: Jan 2, 2025
Listing of Certified Processors: rr-PROCESSORS-bb This list of Certified Processors that are operating under the state of California's Beverage Container Recycling Program is maintained by the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery.
Government Publication Date: Jan 2, 2025
ENVIROSTOR
DELISTED ENVS
SWF/LF
SWRCB SWF
WMUD
HWP
SWAT
C&D DEBRIS RECY
RECYCLING
PROCESSORS
Exhibit C
468
Attachment "3"
746
Item8.
175 erisinfo.com | Environmental Risk Information Services Order No: 25030401545 Listing of Certified Dropoff, Collection, and Community Service Programs: rr-CONTAINER RECY-bb This list of Certified Dropoff, Collection, and Community Service Programs (non-buyback) operating under the state of California's Beverage Container Recycling Program is maintained by the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery.
Government Publication Date: Jan 2, 2025
Land Disposal Sites: rr-LDS-bb
Land Disposal Sites in GeoTracker, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB)'s data management system. The Land Disposal program regulates of waste discharge to land for treatment, storage and disposal in waste management units. Waste management units include waste piles, surface impoundments, and landfills.
Government Publication Date: Sep 25, 2024
Leaking Underground Fuel Tank Reports: rr-LUST-bb
List of Leaking Underground Storage Tanks within the Cleanup Sites data in GeoTracker database. GeoTracker is the State Water Resources Control Board's (SWRCB) data management system for managing sites that impact groundwater, especially those that require groundwater cleanup (Underground Storage Tanks, Department of Defense and Site Cleanup Program) as well as permitted facilities such as operating Underground Storage Tanks. The Leak Prevention Program that overlooks LUST sites is the SWRCB in California's Environmental Protection Agency.
Government Publication Date: Sep 25, 2024
Delisted Leaking Storage Tanks: rr-DELISTED LST-bb
List of Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (LUST) cleanup sites removed from GeoTracker, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB)'s database system, as well as sites removed from the SWRCB's list of UST Case closures.
Government Publication Date: Jan 21, 2025
Permitted Underground Storage Tank (UST) in GeoTracker: rr-UST-bb List of Permitted Underground Storage Tank (UST) sites made available by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) in California's Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Government Publication Date: Nov 17, 2024
Proposed Closure of Underground Storage Tank Cases: rr-UST CLOSURE-bb This listing includes Proposed Closure of Underground Storage Tank (UST) Cases which are being considered for closure by either the State Water Resources Control Board at a Future Board Meeting or the Executive Director that have been posted for a 60-day public comment period, and Closure of UST Cases with Closure Denials and Approved Orders. The lists are provided by the California Water Boards.
Government Publication Date: Jan 21, 2025
Historical Hazardous Substance Storage Information Database: rr-HHSS-bb The Historical Hazardous Substance Storage database contains information collected in the 1980s from facilities that stored hazardous substances. The information was originally collected on paper forms, was later transferred to microfiche, and recently indexed as a searchable database. When using this database, please be aware that it is based upon self-reported information submitted by facilities which has not been independently verified. It is unlikely that every facility responded to the survey and the database should not be expected to be a complete inventory of all facilities that were operating at that time. This database is maintained by the California State Water Resources Control Board's (SWRCB) Geotracker.
Government Publication Date: Aug 27, 2015
Statewide Environmental Evaluation and Planning System: rr-UST SWEEPS-bb The Statewide Environmental Evaluation and Planning System (SWEEPS) is a historical listing of active and inactive underground storage tanks made available by the California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB).
Government Publication Date: Oct 1, 1994
Aboveground Storage Tanks: rr-AST-bb A statewide list from 2009 of aboveground storage tanks (ASTs) made available by the Cal FIRE Office of the State Fire Marshal (OSFM). This list is no longer maintained or updated by the Cal FIRE OSFM.
Government Publication Date: Aug 31, 2009
SWRCB Historical Aboveground Storage Tanks: rr-AST SWRCB-bb A list of aboveground storage tanks made available by the California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). Effective January 1, 2008, the Certified Unified Program Agencies (CUPAs) are vested with the responsibility and authority to implement the Aboveground Petroleum Storage Act (APSA).
Government Publication Date: Dec 1, 2007
CONTAINER RECY
LDS
LUST
DELISTED LST
UST
UST CLOSURE
HHSS
UST SWEEPS
AST
AST SWRCB
Exhibit C
469
Attachment "3"
747
Item8.
176 erisinfo.com | Environmental Risk Information Services Order No: 25030401545 Oil and Gas Facility Tanks: rr-TANK OIL GAS-bb
Locations of oil and gas tanks that fall under the jurisdiction of the Geologic Energy Management Division of the California Department of Conservation (CalGEM) (CCR 1760). CalGEM was formerly the Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR).
Government Publication Date: Jan 22, 2025
Delisted Storage Tanks: rr-DELISTED TNK-bb This database contains a list of storage tank sites that were removed by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) in California's Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Cal FIRE Office of State Fire Marshal (OSFM).
Government Publication Date: Jan 22, 2025
California Environmental Reporting System (CERS) Tanks: rr-CERS TANK-bb List of sites in the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) Regulated Site Portal which fall under the Aboveground Petroleum Storage and Underground Storage Tank regulatory programs. The CalEPA oversees the statewide implementation of the Unified Program which applies regulatory standards to protect Californians from hazardous waste and materials.
Government Publication Date: Oct 28, 2024
Delisted California Environmental Reporting System (CERS) Tanks: rr-DELISTED CTNK-bb This database contains a list of Aboveground Petroleum Storage and Underground Storage Tank sites that were removed from in the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) Regulated Site Portal.
Government Publication Date: Oct 28, 2024
Historical Hazardous Substance Storage Container Information - Facility Summary: rr-HIST TANK-bb The State Water Resources Control Board maintained the Hazardous Substance Storage Containers listing and inventory in th 1980s. This facility summary lists historic tank sites where the following container types were present: farm motor vehicle fuel tanks; waste tanks; sumps; pits, ponds, lagoons, and others; and all other product tanks. This set, published in May 1988, lists facility and owner information, as well as the number of containers. This data is historic and will not be updated.
Government Publication Date: May 27, 1988
Site Mitigation and Brownfields Reuse Program Facility Sites with Land Use Restrictions: rr-LUR-bb The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) Site Mitigation and Brownfields Reuse Program (SMBRP) list includes sites cleaned up under the program's oversight and generally does not include current or former hazardous waste facilities that required a hazardous waste facility permit. The list represents land use restrictions that are active. Some sites have multiple land use restrictions.
Government Publication Date: Dec 10, 2025
CALSITES Database: rr-CALSITES-bb This historical database was maintained by the Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC) for more than a decade. CALSITES contains information on Brownfield properties with confirmed or potential hazardous contamination. In 2006, DTSC introduced EnviroStor as the latest Brownfields site database.
Government Publication Date: May 1, 2004
Hazardous Waste Management Program Facility Sites with Deed / Land Use Restrictions: rr-HLUR-bb The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) Hazardous Waste Management Program (HWMP) has developed a list of current or former hazardous waste facilities that have a recorded land use restriction at the local county recorder's office. The land use restrictions on this list were required by the DTSC HWMP as a result of the presence of hazardous substances that remain on site after the facility (or part of the facility) has been closed or cleaned up. The types of land use restriction include deed notice, deed restriction, or a land use restriction that binds current and future owners. Government Publication Date: Feb 18, 2021 Deed Restrictions and Land Use Restrictions: rr-DEED-bb List of Deed Restrictions, Land Use Restrictions and Covenants in GeoTracker made available by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) in California's Environmental Protection Agency. A deed restriction (land use covenant) may be required to facilitate the remediation of past environmental contamination and to protect human health and the environment by reducing the risk of exposure to residual hazardous materials.
Government Publication Date: Jan 15, 2025
Voluntary Cleanup Program: rr-VCP-bb
List of sites in the Voluntary Cleanup Program made available by the Department of Toxic Substances and Control (DTSC). The Voluntary Cleanup Program was designed to respond to lower priority sites. Under the Voluntary Cleanup Program, DTSC enters site-specific agreements with project proponents for DTSC oversight of site assessment, investigation, and/or removal or remediation activities, and the project proponents agree to pay DTSC's reasonable costs for those services.
TANK OIL GAS
DELISTED TNK
CERS TANK
DELISTED CTNK
HIST TANK
LUR
CALSITES
HLUR
DEED
VCP
Exhibit C
470
Attachment "3"
748
Item8.
177 erisinfo.com | Environmental Risk Information Services Order No: 25030401545 Government Publication Date: Dec 10, 2025
GeoTracker Cleanup Program Sites: rr-CLEANUP SITES-bb A list of Cleanup Program sites in the state of California made available by The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) of the California Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). SWRCB tracks leaking underground storage tank cleanups as well as other water board cleanups.
Government Publication Date: Sep 25, 2024
Delisted Cleanup Program Sites: rr-DELISTED CLEANUP-bb A list of Cleanup Program sites which were once included - and have since been removed from - the list of Cleanup Program Sites in GeoTracker.
GeoTracker is the State Water Resource Control Boards' data management system for sites that impact, or have the potential to impact, water quality in California, with emphasis on groundwater.
Government Publication Date: Jan 15, 2025
Delisted County Records: rr-DELISTED COUNTY-bb Records removed from county or CUPA databases. Records may be removed from the county lists made available by the respective county departments because they are inactive, or because they have been deemed to be below reportable thresholds.
Government Publication Date: Oct 28, 2024
Tribal
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on Tribal/Indian Lands: rr-INDIAN LUST-bb This list of leaking underground storage tanks (LUSTs) on Tribal/Indian Lands in Region 9, which includes California, is made available by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Government Publication Date: Oct 15, 2024
Underground Storage Tanks on Tribal/Indian Lands: rr-INDIAN UST-bb This list of underground storage tanks (USTs) on Tribal/Indian Lands in Region 9, which includes California, is made available by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Government Publication Date: Oct 15, 2024
Delisted Tribal Leaking Storage Tanks: rr-DELISTED INDIAN LST-bb Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) facilities which once appeared on - and have since been removed from - the Regional Tribal/Indian LUST lists made available by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Government Publication Date: Oct 15, 2024
Delisted Tribal Underground Storage Tanks: rr-DELISTED INDIAN UST-bb Underground Storage Tank (UST) facilities which once appeared on - and have since been removed from - the Regional Tribal/Indian UST lists made available by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Government Publication Date: Oct 15, 2024
County
San Diego County - Solid Waste Facility List: rr-SWF SANDIEGO-bb This list of open and closed Solid Waste Facilities is made available by the County of San Diego Department of Environmental Health and Quality's (DEHQ) agency files and map service. The County of San Diego DEHQ Solid Waste Local Enforcement Agency (LEA) is certified by the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery to enforce state solid waste laws and regulations in San Diego County, excluding the City of San Diego.
Government Publication Date: Sep 24, 2024
San Diego County - Local Oversight Program List: rr-LOP SANDIEGO-bb A list of Underground Storage Tank (UST) release sites in the County of San Diego. This list is made available by San Diego County Department of Environmental Health.
Government Publication Date: Jun 15, 2020
CLEANUP SITES
DELISTED CLEANUP
DELISTED COUNTY
INDIAN LUST
INDIAN UST
DELISTED INDIAN LST
DELISTED INDIAN UST
SWF SANDIEGO
LOP SANDIEGO
Exhibit C
471
Attachment "3"
749
Item8.
178 erisinfo.com | Environmental Risk Information Services Order No: 25030401545 San Diego County - Hazardous Materials Management Division Database: rr-HAZ SANDIEGO-bb A list of facilities with Unified Program Facility Permit in San Diego County. This list has been made available by County of San Diego Environmental Health.
Government Publication Date: Jul 19, 2024
San Diego County - UST List: rr-UST SANDIEGO-bb A list of registered Underground Storage Tanks in the County of San Diego. The list is made available by the San Diego County Hazardous Materials Division.
Government Publication Date: Sep 13, 2024
San Diego County - Site Assessment and Mitigation Investigation Sites: rr-SAM SANDIEGO-bb List of sites which have undergone a Site Assessment and Mitigation investigation. This list is made available by the County of San Diego Department of Environmental Health.
Government Publication Date: Apr 26, 2024
Additional Environmental Record Sources
Federal
PFAS Greenhouse Gas Emissions Data: rr-PFAS GHG-bb The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP) collects Greenhouse Gas (GHG) data from large emitting facilities (25,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) per year), and suppliers of fossil fuels and industrial gases that results in GHG emissions when used. Includes GHG emissions data for facilities that emit or have emitted since 2010 chemicals identified in EPA's CompTox Chemicals Dashboard list of PFAS without explicit structures and list of PFAS structures by DSSTox. PFAS emissions data has been identified for facilities engaged in the following industrial processes: Aluminum Production (GHGRP Subpart F), HCFC-22 Production and HFC-23 Destruction (Subpart O), Electronics Manufacturing (Subpart I), Fluorinated Gas Production (Subpart L), Magnesium Production (Subpart T), Electrical Transmission and Distribution Equipment Use (Subpart DD), and Manufacture of Electric Transmission and Distribution Equipment (Subpart SS). Over time, other industrial processes with required GHGRP reporting may include PFAS emissions data and the list of reportable gases may change over time.
Government Publication Date: Aug 5, 2024
On-Scene Coordinator Response Sites: rr-OSC RESPONSE-bb This list of On-Scene Coordinator (OSC) Response Sites is provided by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). OSCs are the federal officials responsible for monitoring or directing responses to all oil spills and hazardous substance releases reported to the federal government. OSCs coordinate all federal efforts with, and provide support and information to local, state, and regional response communities. An OSC is an agent of either EPA or the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), depending on where the incident occurs. EPA's OSCs have primary responsibility for spills and releases to inland areas and waters. USCG OSCs have responsibility for coastal waters and the Great Lakes. In general, an OSC has the following key responsibilities during and after a response: Assessment, Monitoring, Response Assistance, and Evaluation.
Government Publication Date: Apr 4, 2024
Facility Registry Service/Facility Index: rr-FINDS/FRS-bb The Facility Registry Service (FRS) is a centrally managed database that identifies facilities, sites, or places subject to environmental regulations or of environmental interest. FRS creates high-quality, accurate, and authoritative facility identification records through rigorous verification and management procedures that incorporate information from program national systems, state master facility records, and data collected from EPA's Central Data Exchange registrations and data management personnel. This list is made available by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Government Publication Date: Aug 1, 2024
Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) Program: rr-TRIS-bb The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) is a database containing data on disposal or other releases of toxic chemicals from U.S. facilities and information about how facilities manage those chemicals through recycling, energy recovery, and treatment. There are currently 770 individually listed chemicals and 33 chemical categories covered by the TRI Program. Facilities that manufacture, process or otherwise use these chemicals in amounts above established levels must submit annual reporting forms for each chemical. Note that the TRI chemical list does not include all toxic chemicals used in the U.S. One of TRI's primary purposes is to inform communities about toxic chemical releases to the environment. This database includes TRI Reporting Data for calendar years 1987 through 2021 and Preliminary Data for 2022.
Government Publication Date: Sep 20, 2023
HAZ SANDIEGO
UST SANDIEGO
SAM SANDIEGO
PFAS GHG
OSC RESPONSE
FINDS/FRS
TRIS
Exhibit C
472
Attachment "3"
750
Item8.
179 erisinfo.com | Environmental Risk Information Services Order No: 25030401545 PFOA/PFOS Contaminated Sites: rr-PFAS NPL-bb This list of Superfund Sites with Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) detections is made available by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in their PFAS Analytic Tools data, previously the list was obtained by EPA FOIA requests. EPA's Office of Land and Emergency Management and EPA Regional Offices maintain what is known about site investigations, contamination, and remedial actions under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) where PFAS is present in the environment. Limitations: Detections of PFAS at National Priorities List (NPL) sites do not mean that people are at risk from PFAS, are exposed to PFAS, or that the site is the source of the PFAS. The information in the Superfund NPL and Superfund Alternative Agreement (SAA) PFAS detection site list is years old and may not be accurate today. Site information such as site name, site ID, and location has been confirmed for accuracy; however, PFAS-related information such as media sampled, drinking water being above the health advisory, or mitigation efforts has not been verified. For Federal Facilities data, the other Federal agencies (OFA) are the lead agency for their data and provided them to EPA.
Government Publication Date: Dec 17, 2024
Federal Agency Locations with Known or Suspected PFAS Detections: rr-PFAS FED SITES-bb This list of federal agency locations with known or suspected detections of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) is made available by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) PFAS Analytic Tools data. The EPA outlines that these data are gathered from several federal entities, such as the federal Superfund program, Department of Defense (DOD), National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), Department of Transportation (DOT), and Department of Energy (DOE). The dates this data was extracted for the PFAS Analytic Tools range from 2022 to 2024. Sites on this list do not necessarily reflect the source/s of PFAS contamination and detections do not indicate level of risk or human exposure at the site.
Agricultural notifications in this data are limited to DOD sites only. At this time, the EPA is aware that this list is not comprehensive of all Federal agencies.
Government Publication Date: Oct 24, 2024
SSEHRI PFAS Contamination Sites: rr-PFAS SSEHRI-bb This PFAS Contamination Site Tracker database is compiled by the PFAS Project Lab, part of the Social Science Environmental Health Research Institute (SSEHRI) at Northeastern University. According to the SSEHRI, the database records qualitative and quantitative data from each known site of PFAS contamination, including timeline of discovery, sources, levels, health impacts, community response, and government response. The goal of this database is to compile information and support public understanding of the rapidly unfolding issue of PFAS contamination. All data presented was extracted from government websites, news articles, or publicly available documents. Locations for the Known PFAS Contamination Sites are sourced from the PFAS Sites and Community Resources Map by the PFAS-REACH team, credited to PFAS Project Lab, Silent Spring Institute, and PFAS Exchange. Disclaimer: The source conveys the data undergoes regular updates as new information becomes available, some sites may be missing and/or contain information that is incorrect or outdated, as well as their information represents all contamination sites SSEHRI is aware of, not all possible contamination sites. This data is not intended to be used for legal purposes. Access the following source link for the most current information:
https://pfasproject.com/pfas-sites-and-community-resources/ Government Publication Date: Jun 27, 2024
National Response Center PFAS Spills: rr-PFAS ERNS-bb This Per- and Poly-Fluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) Spills dataset is made available via the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) PFAS Analytic Tools. The National Response Center (NRC), operated by the U.S. Coast Guard, is the designated federal point of contact for reporting all oil, chemical, and other discharges into the environment, for the United States and its territories. This dataset contains NRC spill information from 1990 to the present that is restricted to records associated with PFAS and PFAS-containing materials. Incidents are filtered to include only records with a "Material Involved" or "Incident Description" related to Aqueous Film Forming Foam (AFFF). The keywords used to filter the data included "AFFF," "Fire Fighting Foam," "Aqueous Film Forming Foam," "Fire Suppressant Foam, "PFAS," "PERFL," "PFOA," "PFOS," and "Genx." Limitations: The data from the NRC website contains initial incident data that has not been validated or investigated by a federal/state response agency. Keyword searches may misidentify some incident reports that do not contain PFAS. This dataset should also not be considered to be exhaustive of all PFAS spills/release incidents.
Government Publication Date: Dec 9, 2024
PFAS NPDES Discharge Monitoring: rr-PFAS NPDES-bb This list of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitted facilities with required monitoring for Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl (PFAS) Substances is made available via the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)'s PFAS Analytic Tools. Any point-source wastewater discharger to waters of the United States must have a NPDES permit, which defines a set of parameters for pollutants and monitoring to ensure that the discharge does not degrade water quality or impair human health. This list includes NPDES permitted facilities associated with permits that monitor for Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS), limited to the years 2007 - present. EPA further advises the following regarding these data: currently, fewer than half of states have required PFAS monitoring for at least one of their permittees, and fewer states have established PFAS effluent limits for permittees. For states that may have required monitoring, some reporting and data transfer issues may exist on a state-by-state basis.
Government Publication Date: Dec 16, 2024
Perfluorinated Alkyl Substances (PFAS) from Toxic Release Inventory: rr-PFAS TRI-bb
PFAS NPL
PFAS FED SITES
PFAS SSEHRI
PFAS ERNS
PFAS NPDES
PFAS TRI
Exhibit C
473
Attachment "3"
751
Item8.
180 erisinfo.com | Environmental Risk Information Services Order No: 25030401545 List of Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) facilities at which the reported chemical is a per- or polyfluoroalkyl (PFAS) substance included in the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) consolidated PFAS Master List of PFAS Substances. Encompasses Toxics Release Inventory records included in the EPA PFAS Analytic Tools. The EPA's TRI database currently tracks information on disposal or releases of 770 individually listed toxic chemicals and 33 chemical categories from thousands of U.S. facilities and details about how facilities manage those chemicals through recycling, energy recovery, and treatment. This listing includes TRI Reporting Data for calendar years 1987 through 2021 and Preliminary Data for 2022.
Government Publication Date: Sep 20, 2023
PFAS Water Quality Portal Sampling Data: rr-PFAS WATER-bb This Per- and Poly-Fluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) Environmental Media Sampling Data is made available via the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) PFAS Analytic Tools. The Water Quality Portal (WQP), as a cooperative service sponsored by the United States Geological Survey, the EPA, and the National Water Quality Monitoring Council, is part of a modernized repository storing ambient sampling data for all environmental media and tissue samples. A wide range of federal, state, tribal and local governments, academic and non-governmental organizations, and individuals submit project details and sampling results to this public repository. Limitations: EPA did not carry out the sampling or testing of a majority of the data in the WQP PFAS dataset. EPA can only speak to the accuracy and completeness of the data from projects like the National Aquatic Resource Surveys for which EPA is the data owner/organization. Data may exist within the file on Quality Assurance Project Plans (QAPPs) and the approving agency of the QAPP, if a QAPP is entered.
Government Publication Date: Jul 22, 2024
PFAS TSCA Manufacture and Import Facilities: rr-PFAS TSCA-bb The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued the Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) Rule under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and requires chemical manufacturers and facilities that manufacture or import chemical substances to report data to EPA. This list is specific only to TSCA Manufacture and Import Facilities with reported per- and poly-fluoroalkyl (PFAS) substances. Data file is sourced from EPA's PFAS Analytic Tools TSCA dataset which includes CDR/Inventory Update Reporting data from 1998 up to 2020. Disclaimer: This data file includes production and importation data for chemicals identified in EPA's CompTox Chemicals Dashboard list of PFAS without explicit structures and list of PFAS structures in DSSTox. Note that some regulations have specific chemical structure requirements that define PFAS differently than the lists in EPA's CompTox Chemicals Dashboard. Reporting information on manufactured or imported chemical substance amounts should not be compared between facilities, as some companies claim Chemical Data Reporting Rule data fields for PFAS information as Confidential Business Information.
Government Publication Date: Jan 5, 2023
PFAS Waste Transfers from RCRA e-Manifest : rr-PFAS E-MANIFEST-bb This Per- and Poly-Fluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) Waste Transfers dataset is made available via the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) PFAS Analytic Tools. Every shipment of hazardous waste in the U.S. must be accompanied by a shipment manifest, which is a critical component of the cradle-to-grave tracking of wastes mandated by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). According to the EPA, currently no Federal Waste Code exists for any PFAS compounds. To work around the lack of PFAS waste codes in the RCRA database, EPA developed the PFAS Transfers dataset by mining e-Manifest records containing at least one of these common PFAS keywords: PFAS PFOA PFOS PERFL AFFF GENX GEN-X (plus the Vermont state-specific waste codes). Limitations: Amount or concentration of PFAS being transferred cannot be determined from the manifest information. Keyword searches may misidentify some manifest records that do not contain PFAS. This dataset should also not be considered to be exhaustive of all PFAS waste transfers.
Government Publication Date: Dec 15, 2024
PFAS Industry Sectors: rr-PFAS IND-bb This Per- and Poly-Fluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) Industry Sectors dataset is made available via the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) PFAS Analytic Tools. The EPA developed the dataset from various sources that show which industries may be handling PFAS including: EPA's Enforcement and Compliance History Online (ECHO) records restricted to potential PFAS-handling industry sectors; ECHO records for Fire Training Sites identified where fire-fighting foam may have been used in training exercises; and 14 CFR Part 139 Airports compiled from historic and current records from the FAA Airport Data and Information Portal. Since July 2006, all certificated Part 139 Airports are required to have fire-fighting foam onsite that meet certain military specifications, which to date have been fluorinated (Aqueous Film Forming Foam). Limitations: Inclusion in this dataset does not indicate that PFAS are being manufactured, processed, used, or released by the facility. Listed facilities potentially handle PFAS based on their industrial profile, but are unconfirmed by the EPA. Keyword searches in ECHO for Fire Training sites may misidentify some facilities and should not be considered to be an exhaustive list of fire training facilities in the U.S.
Government Publication Date: Dec 16, 2024
Hazardous Materials Information Reporting System: rr-HMIRS-bb The Hazardous Materials Incident Reporting System (HMIRS) database contains unintentional hazardous materials release information reported to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration.
Government Publication Date: May 29, 2024
National Clandestine Drug Labs: rr-NCDL-bb
PFAS WATER
PFAS TSCA
PFAS E-MANIFEST
PFAS IND
HMIRS
NCDL
Exhibit C
474
Attachment "3"
752
Item8.
181 erisinfo.com | Environmental Risk Information Services Order No: 25030401545 The U.S. Department of Justice ("the Department"), Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), provides this data as a public service. It contains addresses of some locations where law enforcement agencies reported they found chemicals or other items that indicated the presence of either clandestine drug laboratories or dumpsites. In most cases, the source of the entries is not the Department, and the Department has not verified the entry and does not guarantee its accuracy.
Government Publication Date: Nov 30, 2023
Toxic Substances Control Act: rr-TSCA-bb The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is amending the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) section 8(a) Inventory Update Reporting (IUR) rule and changing its name to the Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) rule. The CDR enables EPA to collect and publish information on the manufacturing, processing, and use of commercial chemical substances and mixtures (referred to hereafter as chemical substances) on the TSCA Chemical Substance Inventory (TSCA Inventory). This includes current information on chemical substance production volumes, manufacturing sites, and how the chemical substances are used. This information helps the Agency determine whether people or the environment are potentially exposed to reported chemical substances. EPA publishes submitted CDR data that is not Confidential Business Information (CBI). EPA CDR collections occur approximately every four years and reporting requirements change per collection.
Government Publication Date: May 12, 2022
Hist TSCA: rr-HIST TSCA-bb The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is amending the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) section 8(a) Inventory Update Reporting (IUR) rule and changing its name to the Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) rule.
The 2006 IUR data summary report includes information about chemicals manufactured or imported in quantities of 25,000 pounds or more at a single site during calendar year 2005. In addition to the basic manufacturing information collected in previous reporting cycles, the 2006 cycle is the first time EPA collected information to characterize exposure during manufacturing, processing and use of organic chemicals. The 2006 cycle also is the first time manufacturers of inorganic chemicals were required to report basic manufacturing information.
Government Publication Date: Dec 31, 2006
FTTS Administrative Case Listing: rr-FTTS ADMIN-bb An administrative case listing from the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, & Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), together known as FTTS. This database was obtained from the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) National Compliance Database (NCDB). The FTTS and NCDB was shut down in 2006.
Government Publication Date: Jan 19, 2007
FTTS Inspection Case Listing: rr-FTTS INSP-bb An inspection case listing from the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, & Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), together known as FTTS. This database was obtained from the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) National Compliance Database (NCDB). The FTTS and NCDB was shut down in 2006.
Government Publication Date: Jan 19, 2007
Potentially Responsible Parties List: rr-PRP-bb Early in the site cleanup process, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) conducts a search to find the Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs). The EPA looks for evidence to determine liability by matching wastes found at the site with parties that may have contributed wastes to the site.
This listing contains PRPs, Noticed Parties, at sites in the EPA's Superfund Enterprise Management System (SEMS).
Government Publication Date: Nov 20, 2024
State Coalition for Remediation of Drycleaners Listing: rr-SCRD DRYCLEANER-bb The State Coalition for Remediation of Drycleaners (SCRD) was established in 1998, with support from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation. Coalition members are states with mandated programs and funding for drycleaner site remediation. Current members are Alabama, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, North Carolina, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Wisconsin. Since 2017, the SCRD no longer maintains this data, refer to applicable state source data where available.
Government Publication Date: Nov 08, 2017
Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS): rr-ICIS-bb The Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS) database contains integrated enforcement and compliance information across most of U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) programs. The vision for ICIS is to replace EPA's independent databases that contain enforcement data with a single repository for that information. Currently, ICIS contains all Federal Administrative and Judicial enforcement actions and a subset of the Permit Compliance System (PCS), which supports the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). This information is maintained by the EPA Headquarters and at the Regional offices. A future release of ICIS will completely replace PCS and will integrate that information with Federal actions already in the system. ICIS also has the capability to track other activities that support compliance and enforcement programs, including incident tracking, compliance assistance, and compliance monitoring.
Government Publication Date: Apr 13, 2024
TSCA
HIST TSCA
FTTS ADMIN
FTTS INSP
PRP
SCRD DRYCLEANER
ICIS
Exhibit C
475
Attachment "3"
753
Item8.
182 erisinfo.com | Environmental Risk Information Services Order No: 25030401545 Drycleaner Facilities: rr-FED DRYCLEANERS-bb A list of drycleaner facilities from Enforcement and Compliance History Online (ECHO) data as made available by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), sourced from the ECHO Exporter file. The EPA tracks facilities that possess NAIC and SIC codes that classify businesses as drycleaner establishments.
Government Publication Date: May 5, 2024
Delisted Drycleaner Facilities: rr-DELISTED FED DRY-bb
List of sites removed from the list of Drycleaner Facilities (sites in the EPA's Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS) with NAIC or SIC codes identifying the business as a drycleaner establishment).
Government Publication Date: May 5, 2024
Formerly Used Defense Sites: rr-FUDS-bb Formerly Used Defense Sites (FUDS) are properties that were formerly owned by, leased to, or otherwise possessed by and under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of Defense prior to October 1986, where the Department of Defense (DOD) is responsible for an environmental restoration. The FUDS Annual Report to Congress (ARC) is published by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). This data is compiled from the USACE's Geospatial FUDS data layers and Homeland Infrastructure Foundation-Level Data (HIFLD) FUDS dataset which applies to the Fiscal Year 2021 FUDS Inventory.
Government Publication Date: May 15, 2023
FUDS Munitions Response Sites: rr-FUDS MRS-bb Boundaries of Munitions Response Sites (MRS), published with the Formerly Used Defense Sites (FUDS) Annual Report to Congress (ARC) by the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). An MRS is a discrete location within a Munitions response area (MRA) that is known to require a munitions response. An MRA means any area on a defense site that is known or suspected to contain unexploded ordnance (UXO), discarded military munitions (DMM), or munitions constituents (MC). This data is compiled from the USACE's Geospatial MRS data layers and Homeland Infrastructure FoundationLevel Data (HIFLD) MRS dataset.
Government Publication Date: May 15, 2023
Former Military Nike Missile Sites: rr-FORMER NIKE-bb This information was taken from report DRXTH-AS-IA-83A016 (Historical Overview of the Nike Missile System, 12/1984) which was performed by Environmental Science and Engineering, Inc. for the U.S. Army Toxic and Hazardous Materials Agency Assessment Division. The Nike system was deployed between 1954 and the mid-1970's. Among the substances used or stored on Nike sites were liquid missile fuel (JP-4); starter fluids (UDKH, aniline, and furfuryl alcohol); oxidizer (IRFNA); hydrocarbons (motor oil, hydraulic fluid, diesel fuel, gasoline, heating oil); solvents (carbon tetrachloride, trichloroethylene, trichloroethane, stoddard solvent); and battery electrolyte. The quantities of material a disposed of and procedures for disposal are not documented in published reports. Virtually all information concerning the potential for contamination at Nike sites is confined to personnel who were assigned to Nike sites. During deactivation most hardware was shipped to depot-level supply points. There were reportedly instances where excess materials were disposed of on or near the site itself at closure. There was reportedly no routine site decontamination.
Government Publication Date: Dec 2, 1984
PHMSA Pipeline Safety Flagged Incidents: rr-PIPELINE INCIDENT-bb This list of flagged pipeline incidents is made available by the U.S. Department of Transportation (US DOT) Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA). PHMSA regulations require incident and accident reports for five different pipeline system types. Accidents reported on hazardous liquid gravity lines (§195.13) and reporting-regulated-only hazardous liquid gathering lines (§195.15) and incidents reported on Type R gas gathering (§192.8(c)) are not included in the flagged incident file data.
Government Publication Date: May 6, 2024
Material Licensing Tracking System (MLTS): rr-MLTS-bb A list of sites that store radioactive material subject to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) licensing requirements. This list is maintained by the NRC. As of September 2016, the NRC no longer releases location information for sites. Site locations were last received in July 2016.
Government Publication Date: May 11, 2021
Historic Material Licensing Tracking System (MLTS) sites: rr-HIST MLTS-bb A historic list of sites that have inactive licenses and/or removed from the Material Licensing Tracking System (MLTS). In some cases, a site is removed from the MLTS when the state becomes an "Agreement State". An Agreement State is a State that has signed an agreement with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) authorizing the State to regulate certain uses of radioactive materials within the State.
Government Publication Date: Jan 31, 2010
Mines Master Index File: rr-MINES-bb
FED DRYCLEANERS
DELISTED FED DRY
FUDS
FUDS MRS
FORMER NIKE
PIPELINE INCIDENT
MLTS
HIST MLTS
MINES
Exhibit C
476
Attachment "3"
754
Item8.
183 erisinfo.com | Environmental Risk Information Services Order No: 25030401545 The Master Index File (MIF) is provided by the United States Department of Labor, Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA). This file, which was originally created in the 1970's, contained many Mine-IDs that were invalid. MSHA removes invalid IDs from the MIF upon discovery. MSHA applicable data includes the following: all Coal and Metal/Non-Metal mines under MSHA's jurisdiction since 1/1/1970; mine addresses for all mines in the database except for Abandoned mines prior to 1998 from MSHA's legacy system (addresses may or may not correspond with the physical location of the mine itself); violations that have been assessed penalties as a result of MSHA inspections beginning on 1/1/2000; and violations issued as a result of MSHA inspections conducted beginning on 1/1/2000.
Government Publication Date: Feb 5, 2024
Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act Sites: rr-SMCRA-bb This inventory of land and water impacted by past mining (primarily legacy coal mining operations) is maintained by the U.S. Department of the Interior's Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE), as it provides information needed to implement the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA). This inventory contains information on the type and extent of Abandoned Mine Land (AML) Problems, as well as information on the cost associated with the reclamation of those problems. The data is based upon field surveys by State, Tribal, and OSMRE program officials. It is dynamic to the extent that it is modified as new problems are identified and existing problems are reclaimed. Disclaimer: Per the OSMRE, States and tribes who enter their data into e-AMLIS (AML Inventory System) may truncate their latitude and longitude so the precise location of usually dangerous AMLs is not revealed in an effort to protect the public from searching for these AMLs, most of which are on private property. If more precise location information is needed, please contact the applicable state/tribe of interest.
Government Publication Date: May 20, 2024
Mineral Resource Data System: rr-MRDS-bb The Mineral Resource Data System (MRDS) is a collection of reports describing metallic and nonmetallic mineral resources throughout the world.
Included are deposit name, location, commodity, deposit description, geologic characteristics, production, reserves, resources, and references. This database contains the records previously provided in the Mineral Resource Data System (MRDS) of USGS and the Mineral Availability System/Mineral Industry Locator System (MAS/MILS) originated in the U.S. Bureau of Mines, which is now part of USGS. The USGS has ceased systematic updates of the MRDS database with their focus more recently on deposits of critical minerals while providing a well-documented baseline of historical mine locations from USGS topographic maps.
Government Publication Date: Mar 15, 2016
DOE Legacy Management Sites: rr-LM SITES-bb The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Legacy Management (LM) currently manages radioactive and chemical waste, environmental contamination, and hazardous material at over 100 sites across the U.S. The LM manages sites with diverse regulatory drivers (statutes or programs that direct cleanup and management requirements at DOE sites) or as part of internal DOE or congressionally-recognized programs, such as but not limited to: Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP), Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act (UMTRCA Title I, Tile II), Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), Decontamination and Decommissioning (D&D), Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA). This site listing includes data exported from the DOE Office of LM' s Geospatial Environmental Mapping System (GEMS). GEMS Data disclaimer: The DOE Office of LM makes no representation or warranty, expressed or implied, regarding the use, accuracy, availability, or completeness of the data presented herein.
Government Publication Date: Dec 12, 2023
Alternative Fueling Stations: rr-ALT FUELS-bb This list of alternative fueling stations is sourced from the Alternative Fuels Data Center (AFDC). The U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy launched the AFDC in 1991 as a repository for alternative fuel vehicle performance data, which provides a wealth of information and data on alternative and renewable fuels, advanced vehicles, fuel-saving strategies, and emerging transportation technologies. The data includes Biodiesel (B20 and above), Compressed Natural Gas (CNG), Electric, Ethanol (E85), Hydrogen, Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG), Propane (LPG), and Renewable Diesel (R20 and above) fuel type locations.
Government Publication Date: Aug 29, 2024
Superfunds Consent Decrees: rr-CONSENT DECREES-bb This list of Superfund consent decrees is provided by the Department of Justice, Environment & Natural Resources Division (ENRD) through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) applicable file. This listing includes Cases filed since 2010 limited to the following: Consent Decrees for CERCLA or Superfund Sites filed and/or as proposed within the ENRD's Case Management System (CMS); and applicable ENRD's Environmental Defense Section (EDS) CERCLA Cases with "Consent" in History Note. CMS may not reflect the latest developments in a case, nor can the agency guarantee the accuracy of the data. ENRD Disclaimer: Congress excluded three discrete categories of law enforcement and national security records from the requirements of the FOIA; response is limited to those records that are subject to the requirements of the FOIA; however, this should not be taken as an indication that excluded records do, or do not, exist.
Government Publication Date: Jun 26, 2024
Air Facility System: rr-AFS-bb
SMCRA
MRDS
LM SITES
ALT FUELS
CONSENT DECREES
AFS
Exhibit C
477
Attachment "3"
755
Item8.
184 erisinfo.com | Environmental Risk Information Services Order No: 25030401545 This EPA retired Air Facility System (AFS) dataset contains emissions, compliance, and enforcement data on stationary sources of air pollution.
Regulated sources cover a wide spectrum; from large industrial facilities to relatively small operations such as dry cleaners. AFS does not contain data on facilities that are solely asbestos demolition and/or renovation contractors, or landfills. ECHO Clean Air Act data from AFS are frozen and reflect data as of October 17, 2014; the EPA retired this system for Clean Air Act stationary sources and transitioned to ICIS-Air.
Government Publication Date: Oct 17, 2014
Registered Pesticide Establishments: rr-SSTS-bb This national list of active EPA-registered foreign and domestic pesticide and/or device-producing establishments is based on data from the Section Seven Tracking System (SSTS). The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) Section 7 requires that each producing establishment must place its EPA establishment number on the label or immediate container of each pesticide, active ingredient or device produced. An EPA establishment number on a pesticide product label identifies the EPA registered location where the product was produced. The list of establishments is made available by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Government Publication Date: Feb 29, 2024
Polychlorinated Biphenyl (PCB) Transformers: rr-PCBT-bb Locations of Transformers Containing Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) registered with the United States Environmental Protection Agency. PCB transformer owners must register their transformer(s) with EPA. Although not required, PCB transformer owners who have removed and properly disposed of a registered PCB transformer may notify EPA to have their PCB transformer de-registered. Data made available by EPA.
Government Publication Date: Oct 15, 2019
Polychlorinated Biphenyl (PCB) Notifiers: rr-PCB-bb Facilities included in the national list of facilities that have notified the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of Polychlorinated Biphenyl (PCB) activities. Any company or person storing, transporting or disposing of PCBs or conducting PCB research and development must notify the EPA and receive an identification number.
Government Publication Date: May 23, 2024
Power Plants: rr-POWER PLANTS-bb This list of power plants is provided by the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). The listing includes operable electric generating plants in the United States by energy source, originating from the EIA-860, Annual Electric Generator Report; EIA-860M, Monthly Update to the Annual Electric Generator Report; and EIA-923, Power Plant Operations Report. It includes all operable plants by energy source with a combined nameplate capacity of 1 megawatt or more that are operating, are on standby, or out of service for short- or long-term.
Government Publication Date: Apr 15, 2024
State
PFAS Sampling Locations: rr-PFAS SAMPLING-bb This data is sourced from the State Water Board's GeoTracker Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) Map tool which contains individual sampling points (i.e., soil boring, groundwater monitoring well, drinking water well for municipal drinking water systems, etc.) or a site location with PFAS analytical data. Includes analytical results that are finalized and submitted electronically by the Responsible Parties via GeoTracker's Electronic Submittal of Information Portal, and after it's accepted by a Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Government Publication Date: Dec 6, 2024
Dry Cleaning Facilities: rr-DRYCLEANERS-bb A list of drycleaner related facilities that have EPA ID numbers. These are facilities with certain SIC codes: power laundries, family and commercial, linen supply, commercial laundry, dry cleaning and pressing machines - Coin Operated Laundry and Dry Cleaning. This is provided by the Department of Toxic Substance Control.
Government Publication Date: Dec 20, 2021
Delisted Drycleaners: rr-DELISTED DRYCLEANERS-bb Sites removed from the list of drycleaner related facilities that have EPA ID numbers, made available by the California Department of Toxic Substance Control.
Government Publication Date: Jan 31, 2022
Non-Toxic Dry Cleaning Incentive Program: rr-DRYC GRANT-bb A list of grant recipients of the Non-Toxic Dry Cleaning Incentive Program made available by the California Air Resources Board (CARB). The program provides grants to eligible dry cleaning businesses to assist them in transitioning away from PERC machines to alternative non-toxic and non-smog forming technologies.
Government Publication Date: Jan 31, 2022
SSTS
PCBT
PCB
POWER PLANTS
PFAS SAMPLING
DRYCLEANERS
DELISTED DRYCLEANERS
DRYC GRANT
Exhibit C
478
Attachment "3"
756
Item8.
185 erisinfo.com | Environmental Risk Information Services Order No: 25030401545 PFAS GeoTracker Cleanup Sites: rr-PFAS GT CLEANUPS-bb A list of applicable cleanup sites from the State Water Resources Control Board's (SWRCB) GeoTracker data management system where one or more of the potential contaminants of concern are identified in the PFAS Structure List and/or PFAS Chemicals Without Explicit Structure List made available by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA).
Government Publication Date: Jan 15, 2025
PFOA/PFOS Groundwater: rr-PFAS GW-bb A list of water wells from the Groundwater Ambient Monitoring and Assessment Program (GAMA) Groundwater Information System with the groundwater chemical perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) (NL = 0.014 UG/L) or perfluorooctanoic sulfonate (PFOS) (NL = 0.013 UG/L). The GAMA Groundwater Information System search is made available by California Water Boards.
Government Publication Date: Dec 1, 2024
PFAS Investigations: rr-PFAS INVEST-bb This list of potential Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substance (PFAS) sites is compiled from the California State Water Resources Control Board's (SWRCB) PFAS Investigations Map tool. The SWRCB issued investigative orders, per California Water Code (CWC) Section 13267 and/or 13383, to these sites.
Orders were also issued to the public water systems to sample wells in the vicinity of these locations. Military facilities have been identified by the Department of Defense (DOD) as part of their efforts to investigate PFAS per the Defense Environmental Restoration Program (DERP) under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). The data includes locations for Airports, Chrome Plating Facilities, Landfills, Publicly Owned Treatment Works, Refineries and Bulk Terminals, DOD Facilities, and Monitored Drinking Water Wells being investigated for potential PFAS.
Government Publication Date: Jan 23, 2024
Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List - Site Cleanup: rr-HWSS CLEANUP-bb The Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites (Cortese) List is a planning document used by the State, local agencies and developers to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act requirements in providing information about the location of hazardous materials release sites. This list is published by California Department of Toxic Substance Control.
Government Publication Date: Mar 15, 2023
Toxic Pit Cleanup Act Sites: rr-TOXIC PITS-bb The Toxic Pits Cleanup Act (TPCA) list identifies sites suspected of containing hazardous substances where cleanup has not yet been completed. This list was maintained by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), is not longer maintained, and updates are not planned.
Government Publication Date: Jul 1, 1995
List of Hazardous Waste Facilities Subject to Corrective Action: rr-DTSC HWF-bb This is a list of hazardous waste facilities identified in Health and Safety Code (HSC) § 25187.5. These facilities are those where Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) has taken or contracted for corrective action because a facility owner/operator has failed to comply with a date for taking corrective action in an order issued under HSC § 25187, or because DTSC determined that immediate corrective action was necessary to abate an imminent or substantial endangerment.
Government Publication Date: Jul 18, 2016
EnviroStor Inspection, Compliance, and Enforcement: rr-INSP COMP ENF-bb A list of permitted facilities with inspections and enforcements tracked by the California Department of Toxic Substance Control's (DTSC) EnviroStor data management system.
Government Publication Date: Nov 23, 2023
School Property Evaluation Program Sites: rr-SCH-bb A list of sites registered with The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) School Property Evaluation and Cleanup (SPEC) Division. SPEC is responsible for assessing, investigating and cleaning up proposed school sites. The Division ensures that selected properties are free of contamination or, if the properties were previously contaminated, that they have been cleaned up to a level that protects the students and staff who will occupy the new school.
Government Publication Date: Dec 10, 2025
California Hazardous Material Incident Report System (CHMIRS): rr-CHMIRS-bb A list of reported hazardous material incidents, spills, and releases from the California Hazardous Material Incident Report System (CHMIRS). This listing has been made available by the California Governor's Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES).
Government Publication Date: Oct 21, 2024
PFAS GT CLEANUPS
PFAS GW
PFAS INVEST
HWSS CLEANUP
TOXIC PITS
DTSC HWF
INSP COMP ENF
SCH
CHMIRS
Exhibit C
479
Attachment "3"
757
Item8.
186 erisinfo.com | Environmental Risk Information Services Order No: 25030401545 Historical California Hazardous Material Incident Report System (CHMIRS): rr-HIST CHMIRS-bb A list of reported hazardous material incidents, spills, and releases from the California Hazardous Material Incident Report System (CHMIRS) prior to 1993. This list has been made available by the California Office of Emergency Services (OES).
Government Publication Date: Jan 1, 1993
Handlers from Hazardous Waste Manifest Data: rr-HAZNET-bb A list of handlers not otherwise classified as Treatment, Storage, Disposal facilities (TSDF) or generators from the facilities and manifests data made available by the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) in their Hazardous Waste Tracking System (HWTS).
Government Publication Date: Oct 24, 2016
Generators from Hazardous Waste Manifest Data: rr-HAZ GEN-bb List of handlers listed as having generated waste from the facilities and manifests data made available by the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) in their Hazardous Waste Tracking System (HWTS).
Government Publication Date: Dec 31, 2017
TSDF from Hazardous Waste Manifest Data: rr-HAZ TSD-bb
List of Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) from the facilities and manifests data made available by the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) in their Hazardous Waste Tracking System (HWTS).
Government Publication Date: Dec 31, 2017
Historical Hazardous Waste Manifest Data: rr-HIST MANIFEST-bb A list of historic hazardous waste manifests received by the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) from year the 1980 to 1992. The volume of manifests is typically 900,000 - 1,000,000 annually, representing approximately 450,000 - 500,000 shipments.
Government Publication Date: Dec 31, 1992
DTSC Registered Hazardous Waste Transporters: rr-HW TRANSPORT-bb The California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) maintains this list of Registered Hazardous Waste Transporters.
Government Publication Date: Jan 2, 2025
Registered Waste Tire Haulers: rr-WASTE TIRE-bb This list of registered waste tire haulers is maintained by the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery.
Government Publication Date: Feb 13, 2025
California Medical Waste Management Program Facility List: rr-MEDICAL WASTE-bb This list of Medical Waste Management Program Facilities is maintained by the California Department of Public Health. The Medical Waste Management Program (MWMP) regulates the generation, handling, storage, treatment, and disposal of medical waste by providing oversight for the implementation of the Medical Waste Management Act (MWMA). The MWMP permits and inspects all medical waste off-site treatment facilities, medical waste transporters, and medical waste transfer stations. This list contains transporters, treatment, and transfer facilities.
Government Publication Date: Sep 5, 2024
Historical Cortese List: rr-HIST CORTESE-bb
List of sites which were once included on the Cortese list. The Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites (Cortese) List is a planning document used by the State, local agencies and developers to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act requirements for providing information about the location of hazardous sites.
Government Publication Date: Nov 13, 2008
Cease and Desist Orders and Cleanup and Abatement Orders: rr-CDO/CAO-bb The California Environment Protection Agency "Cortese List" of active Cease and Desist Orders (CDO) and Cleanup and Abatement Orders (CAO). This list contains many CDOs and CAOs that do NOT concern the discharge of wastes that are hazardous materials. Many of the listed orders concern, as examples, discharges of domestic sewage, food processing wastes, or sediment that do not contain hazardous materials, but the Water Boards' database does not distinguish between these types of orders.
Government Publication Date: Dec 6, 2021
California Environmental Reporting System (CERS) Hazardous Waste Sites: rr-CERS HAZ-bb List of sites in the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) Regulated Site Portal which fall under the following regulatory programs:
Hazardous Chemical Management, Hazardous Waste Onsite Treatment, Household Hazardous Waste Collection, Hazardous Waste Generator, RCRA LQ HW Generator. The CalEPA oversees the statewide implementation of the Unified Program which applies regulatory standards to protect Californians from hazardous waste and materials.
HIST CHMIRS
HAZNET
HAZ GEN
HAZ TSD
HIST MANIFEST
HW TRANSPORT
WASTE TIRE
MEDICAL WASTE
HIST CORTESE
CDO/CAO
CERS HAZ
Exhibit C
480
Attachment "3"
758
Item8.
187 erisinfo.com | Environmental Risk Information Services Order No: 25030401545 Government Publication Date: Oct 28, 2024
Delisted Environmental Reporting System (CERS) Hazardous Waste Sites: rr-DELISTED HAZ-bb This database contains a list of sites that were removed from the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) in the following regulatory programs: Hazardous Chemical Management, Hazardous Waste Onsite Treatment, Household Hazardous Waste Collection, Hazardous Waste Generator, RCRA LQ HW Generator.
Government Publication Date: Nov 29, 2018
Sites in GeoTracker: rr-GEOTRACKER-bb GeoTracker is the State Water Resource Control Boards' data management system for sites that impact, or have the potential to impact, water quality in California, with emphasis on groundwater. This is a list of sites in GeoTracker that aren't otherwise categorized as LUST, Land Disposal Sites (LDS), Cleanup Sites, or sites having Waste Discharge Requirements (WDR). This listing includes program types such as Underground Injection Control (UIC), Confined Animal Facilities (CAF), Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program, plans, and non-case information.
Government Publication Date: Sep 25, 2024
Mines Listing: rr-MINE-bb This list includes mine site locations extracted from the Mines Online database, maintained by the California Department of Conservation. Mines Online (MOL) is an interactive web map designed with GIS features that provide information such as the mine name, mine status, commodity sold, location, and other mine specific data. Please note: Mine location information is provided to assist experts in determining the location of mine operators in accordance with California Civil Code section 1103.4 and reflects information reported by mine operators in annual reports provided under Public Resources Code section 2207. While the Division of Mine Reclamation (DMR) attempts to populate MOL with accurate location information, the DMR cannot guarantee the accuracy of operator reported location information.
Government Publication Date: Oct 3, 2024
Recorded Environmental Cleanup Liens: rr-LIEN-bb The California Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC) maintains this list of liens placed upon real properties. A lien is utilized by the DTSC to obtain reimbursement from responsible parties for costs associated with the remediation of contaminated properties.
Government Publication Date: Dec 18, 2023
Waste Discharge Requirements: rr-WASTE DISCHG-bb
List of sites in California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) Program in California, made available by the SWRCB via GeoTracker. The WDR program regulates point discharges that are exempt pursuant to Subsection 20090 of Title 27 and not subject to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. The scope of the WDRs Program also includes the discharge of wastes classified as inert, pursuant to section 20230 of Title 27.
Government Publication Date: Sep 25, 2024
Toxic Pollutant Emissions Facilities: rr-EMISSIONS-bb A list of criteria and toxic pollutant emissions data for facilities in California made available by the California Environmental Protection Agency - Air Resources Board (ARB). Risk data may be based on previous inventory submittals. The toxics data are submitted to the ARB by the local air districts as requirement of the Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Program.
Government Publication Date: Dec 31, 2021
Clandestine Drug Lab Sites: rr-CDL-bb The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) maintains a listing of drug lab sites. DTSC is responsible for removal and disposal of hazardous substances discovered by law enforcement officials while investigating illegal/clandestine drug laboratories.
Government Publication Date: Jan 19, 2021
Tribal
No Tribal additional environmental record sources available for this State.
County
DELISTED HAZ
GEOTRACKER
MINE
LIEN
WASTE DISCHG
EMISSIONS
CDL
Exhibit C
481
Attachment "3"
759
Item8.
188 erisinfo.com | Environmental Risk Information Services Order No: 25030401545 h-Definitions
Database Descriptions: This section provides a detailed explanation for each database including: source, information available, time coverage, and acronyms used. They are listed in alphabetic order.
Detail Report: This is the section of the report which provides the most detail for each individual record. Records are summarized by location, starting with the project property followed by records in closest proximity.
Distance: The distance value is the distance between plotted points, not necessarily the distance between the sites' boundaries. All values are an approximation.
Direction: The direction value is the compass direction of the site in respect to the project property and/or center point of the report.
Elevation: The elevation value is taken from the location at which the records for the site address have been plotted. All values are an approximation.
Source: Google Elevation API.
Executive Summary: This portion of the report is divided into 3 sections:
'Report Summary'- Displays a chart indicating how many records fall on the project property and, within the report search radii. 'Site Report Summary'-Project Property'- This section lists all the records which fall on the project property. For more details, see the 'Detail Report' section.
'Site Report Summary-Surrounding Properties'- This section summarizes all records on adjacent properties, listing them in order of proximity from the project property. For more details, see the 'Detail Report' section.
Map Key: The map key number is assigned according to closest proximity from the project property. Map Key numbers always start at #1. The project property will always have a map key of '1' if records are available. If there is a number in brackets beside the main number, this will indicate the number of records on that specific property. If there is no number in brackets, there is only one record for that property.
The symbol and colour used indicates 'elevation': the red inverted triangle will dictate 'ERIS Sites with Lower Elevation', the yellow triangle will dictate 'ERIS Sites with Higher Elevation' and the orange square will dictate 'ERIS Sites with Same Elevation.' Unplottables: These are records that could not be mapped due to various reasons, including limited geographic information. These records may or may not be in your study area, and are included as reference.
Definitions
Exhibit C
482
Attachment "3"
760
Item8.
APPENDIX C
REGULATORY AGENCY RECORDS
Exhibit C
483
Attachment "3"
761
Item8.
Request
Hello. We are seeking hazardous waste, hazardous materials, underground storage tank records and site assessment/mitigation les pertaining to the properties located at 1100 Hamilton Lane in Escondido, California.
Thanks.
Dan
TimelineDocuments
Anyone with access to this request
Request published
March 16, 2025, 9:35pm
Anyone with access to this request
Request closed
Hello,
This is in response to your California Public Records Act request, which the County of San Diego received on 03/11/2025 and which states:
We are seeking hazardous waste, hazardous materials, underground storage tank records and site assessment/mitigation les pertaining to the properties located at 1100 Hamilton Lane in Escondido, California.
The County does not have any records responsive to your request. Please note that 72 hours after you receive this message your request will become publicly available.
Thank you,
DEHQ- Hazardous Materials Division
County of San Diego
March 13, 2025, 12:02pm by Sta
Anyone with access to this request
Department assignment
Environmental Health and Quality - Hazardous Material Division (HMD) March 11, 2025, 2:31pm by the requester
Exhibit C
484
Attachment "3"
762
Item8.
Anyone with access to this request
Request opened
Request received via web
March 11, 2025, 2:31pm by the requester
Exhibit C
485
Attachment "3"
763
Item8.
APPENDIX D
HISTORICAL RESOURCES
Exhibit C
486
Attachment "3"
764
Item8.
Exhibit C
487
Attachment "3"
765
Item8.
Exhibit C
488
Attachment "3"
766
Item8.
Exhibit C
489
Attachment "3"
767
Item8.
Exhibit C
490
Attachment "3"
768
Item8.
Exhibit C
491
Attachment "3"
769
Item8.
Exhibit C
492
Attachment "3"
770
Item8.
Exhibit C
493
Attachment "3"
771
Item8.
Exhibit C
494
Attachment "3"
772
Item8.
Exhibit C
495
Attachment "3"
773
Item8.
Exhibit C
496
Attachment "3"
774
Item8.
Exhibit C
497
Attachment "3"
775
Item8.
Exhibit C
498
Attachment "3"
776
Item8.
Exhibit C
499
Attachment "3"
777
Item8.
Exhibit C
500
Attachment "3"
778
Item8.
Exhibit C
501
Attachment "3"
779
Item8.
Exhibit C
502
Attachment "3"
780
Item8.
Exhibit C
503
Attachment "3"
781
Item8.
Exhibit C
504
Attachment "3"
782
Item8.
Exhibit C
505
Attachment "3"
783
Item8.
Exhibit C
506
Attachment "3"
784
Item8.
Exhibit C
507
Attachment "3"
785
Item8.
Exhibit C
508
Attachment "3"
786
Item8.
Exhibit C
509
Attachment "3"
787
Item8.
Exhibit C
510
Attachment "3"
788
Item8.
Project Property:
Project No:
Requested By:
Order No:
Date Completed:
1100 Hamilton Lane
1100 Hamilton Lane
Escondido CA 92029
None
Weis Environmental, LLC
25030401545
March 05, 2025
Exhibit C
511
Attachment "3"
789
Item8.
Topographic Map Symbology for the maps may be available in the following documents:
Pre-1947
1947-2009
2009-present
Topographic Maps included in this report are produced by the USGS and are to be used for research purposes including a phase I report.
Maps are not to be resold as commercial property.
No warranty of Accuracy or Liability for ERIS: The information contained in this report has been produced by ERIS Information Inc.(in the US) and ERIS Information Limited Partnership (in Canada), both doing business as 'ERIS', using Topographic Maps produced by the USGS.
This maps contained herein does not purport to be and does not constitute a guarantee of the accuracy of the information contained herein.
Although ERIS has endeavored to present you with information that is accurate, ERIS disclaims, any and all liability for any errors, omissions, or inaccuracies in such information and data, whether attributable to inadvertence, negligence or otherwise, and for any consequences arising therefrom. Liability on the part of ERIS is limited to the monetary value paid for this report.
Topographic Map Symbols
US Topo Map Symbols
We have searched USGS collections of current topographic maps and historical topographic maps for the project property. Below is a list of maps found for the project property and adjacent area. Maps are from 7.5 and 15 minute topographic map series, if available.
Year Map Series
2022 7.5
2018 7.5
2015 7.5
1996 7.5
1975 7.5
1968 7.5
1949 7.5
1948 7.5
1942 15
1901 15
1893 15
Exhibit C
512
Attachment "3"
790
Item8.
2022
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Map
Order No. 25030401545
0 0.125 0.25 0.5Miles Available Quadrangle(s): Escondido, CA Escondido
Exhibit C
513
Attachment "3"
791
Item8.
2018
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Map
Order No. 25030401545
0 0.125 0.25 0.5Miles Available Quadrangle(s): Escondido, CA Escondido
Exhibit C
514
Attachment "3"
792
Item8.
2015
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Map
Order No. 25030401545
0 0.125 0.25 0.5Miles Available Quadrangle(s): Escondido, CA Escondido
Exhibit C
515
Attachment "3"
793
Item8.
(1-1996) 1996 Aerial Photo Year: 1996 Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Map Order No. 25030401545
0 0.125 0.25 0.5Miles Available Quadrangle(s): Escondido, CA(1-1996) Escondido Exhibit C
516
Attachment "3"
794
Item8.
(1-1975) Aerial Photo Year: 1967 Photo Revision Year: 1975 1975
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Map
Order No. 25030401545
0 0.125 0.25 0.5Miles Available Quadrangle(s): Escondido, CA(1-1975) Escondido Exhibit C
517
Attachment "3"
795
Item8.
(1-1968) 1968 Aerial Photo Year: 1967 Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Map Order No. 25030401545
0 0.125 0.25 0.5Miles Available Quadrangle(s): Escondido, CA(1-1968) Escondido Exhibit C
518
Attachment "3"
796
Item8.
(1-1949) 1949 Aerial Photo Year: 1947 Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Map Order No. 25030401545
0 0.125 0.25 0.5Miles Available Quadrangle(s): Escondido, CA(1-1949) Escondido Exhibit C
519
Attachment "3"
797
Item8.
(1-1948) 1948 Aerial Photo Year: 1947 Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Map Order No. 25030401545
0 0.125 0.25 0.5Miles Available Quadrangle(s): Escondido, CA(1-1948) Escondido Exhibit C
520
Attachment "3"
798
Item8.
(1-1942) 1942 Aerial Photo Year: 1939 Source: USGS 15 Minute Topographic Map Order No. 25030401545
0 0.125 0.25 0.5Miles Available Quadrangle(s): Escondido, CA(1-1942) Escondido Exhibit C
521
Attachment "3"
799
Item8.
1901
Source: USGS 15 Minute Topographic Map
Order No. 25030401545
0 0.125 0.25 0.5Miles Available Quadrangle(s): Escondido, CA Escondido
Exhibit C
522
Attachment "3"
800
Item8.
1893
Source: USGS 15 Minute Topographic Map
Order No. 25030401545
0 0.125 0.25 0.5Miles Available Quadrangle(s): Escondido, CA Escondido
Exhibit C
523
Attachment "3"
801
Item8.
APPENDIX E
PHOTOGRAPHS
Exhibit C
524
Attachment "3"
802
Item8.
Photograph Log 1100 Hamilton Lane Escondido, California 1. View from the northwest corner of the Site facing south. 2. View from the northwest corner of the Site facing east. 3. View from the southwest corner of the Site facing northeast. 4. View from the southeast corner of the Site facing northwest. 5. View from the southwest corner of the Site facing north. 6. View from the northeast corner of the Site facing southwest. Exhibit C 525
Attachment "3"
803
Item8.
Photograph Log 1100 Hamilton Lane Escondido, California 7. View from the center of the Site facing north. 8. View from the center of the Site facing east. 9. View from the center of the Site facing south. 10. View from the center of the Site facing west. 11. View of rock outcrops and vegetation piles in the center of the Site. 12. View of scrap metal debris in the center of the Site. Exhibit C 526
Attachment "3"
804
Item8.
Photograph Log 1100 Hamilton Lane Escondido, California 13. View of pole-mounted transformer along the east side of the Site. 14. View of the east adjoining residential property. 15. View of the south adjoining residential property. 16. View of Bernardo Avenue, then the west adjoining residential property. 17. View of Hamilton Lane, then the north adjoining residential property. Exhibit C 527
Attachment "3"
805
Item8.
APPENDIX F
INTERVIEW QUESTIONNAIRE
Exhibit C
528
Attachment "3"
806
Item8.
Exhibit C
529
Attachment "3"
807
Item8.
Exhibit C
530
Attachment "3"
808
Item8.
Exhibit C
531
Attachment "3"
809
Item8.
APPENDIX G
QUALIFICATIONS
Exhibit C
532
Attachment "3"
810
Item8.
Resume of Dan Weis, R.E.H.S.
Professional Summary
Environmental Manager and California Registered Environmental Health Specialist with extensive expertise in environmental science and assessment, environmental and public health, risk assessment, health and safety, remedial design and implementation, strategic planning and project/program design and implementation. Over 20 years of professional experience and achievement.
Successful completion of projects for a wide range of clientele including, but not limited to, local government entities, developers (affordable housing and market rate), educational institutions, Federal government entities, law firms, architectural and engineering firms, lending institutions, life insurance companies, conservancies, commercial/industrial real estate owners/managers, insurance companies, wireless telecommunication carriers and real estate developers. Extensive experienced in the completion of assessment, construction and remediation quality assurance during the completion of urban redevelopment/brownfields projects and public works projects, many of which have been located in downtown areas of San Diego, Los Angeles, Oakland, San Francisco, and other urban communities throughout the State of California. Proven ability to train and mentor professional, technical and support staff. Manages a comprehensive health and safety program. Holds a Master of Science in Public Health with an emphasis in environmental health science, risk assessment, health and safety, toxicology and environmental policy. Registered Environmental Health Specialist #8172 in the State of California.
Education and Professional Certification
University of Delaware, Bachelor of Arts, 1995
San Diego State University, Master of Science, Public/Environmental Health, 2001 State of California Registered Environmental Health Specialist #8172 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention National Center for Environmental Health Division of Emergency and Environmental Health Services - Environmental Health Training in Emergency Response Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) 40 Hour Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response Standard (HAZWOPER) Training and Annual 8 Hour HAZWOPER Refresher Training OSHA 8 Hour HAZWOPER Supervisor Training
Relevant Skills and Qualifications
Proven ability to manage staff and programs/projects in challenging and diverse environments and regulatory settings.
Consistently meets project schedules, goals, deadlines and budgetary restrictions.
Completed or managed over 3,000 due diligence related environmental assessments and completed or managed over 500 subsurface environmental investigations of soil gas, soil, groundwater and other media. Investigations have included human health and ecological risk assessments, evaluations of indoor air conditions based on interpretations of subsurface conditions, underground storage tank (UST) evaluation/closure and hazardous waste characterization/management.
Subsurface activities performed include the completion of soil borings using various drilling technologies, soil and groundwater sampling, installation and sampling of groundwater monitoring wells, free product evaluations, exploratory trenching and real-time delineation using mobile analytical laboratories and other soil screening technology.
Managed over 100 remediation or construction management related projects primarily related to source removal of subsurface contaminants, including but not limited to, petroleum hydrocarbons, chlorinated solvents, heavy metals, organochlorine pesticides and other agricultural related chemicals, dioxins and furans and polychlorinated biphenyls. Has also assisted in cost recovery efforts from private parties and State/Federal funding programs for environmental assessment and remediation work and has served as an expert witness during legal proceedings pertaining to environmental related claims.
Strong collaboration and negotiation skills with environmental regulatory agencies regarding project planning, initiation, status, approvals and implementation. Direct experience in interfacing with members of regulatory agencies including but not limited to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), California EPA Department of Toxic Substances Dan Weis, R.E.H.S.
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGER
1938 Kellogg Avenue, Suite 116, Carlsbad, CA 92008
(760) 585-7070 // (760) 672-6338 // [email protected] // www.weisenviro.com Exhibit C
533
Attachment "3"
811
Item8.
Resume of Dan Weis, R.E.H.S.
Control and Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, County of San Diego Departments of Environmental Health (DEH), Public Works and Planning and Land Use, San Diego Air Pollution Control District, South Coast Air Quality Management District, Riverside County DEH, San Francisco City and County Department of Public Health (DPH), Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, County of Los Angeles County DPH and other local Certified Unified Program Agencies. Develop, manage and implement compliance and best practices efforts with Federal and State laws and regulations.
Conducted and/or managed hundreds of public/environmental health related assessments including electromagnetic field surveys, radionuclide surveys, indoor air quality investigations, radon surveys, drinking water assessments, asbestos containing materials and lead-based paint surveys and mold/microbial evaluations.
Recovered over $10,000,000 of assessment and cleanup costs for clientele from various sources including State of California Cleanup Funds, United States Environmental Protection Agency Brownfield grants and private parties including major oil companies.
Responsible for facilitating a safe and healthy work environment in concert with the mission of the company while ensuring compliance with applicable Federal, State, and local regulations.
Published technical papers pertaining to geogenic concentrations of metals in San Diego County, radioactive dating and pollutant chronologies in estuarine sediments and various urban runoff related implications.
Delivered presentations pertaining to various environmental topics including human health risk assessment to membership at local and national trade conferences
Project Experience
14th and Island, San Diego, California Development of Site Mitigation Plan, contaminated soil management and disposal concurrent with site construction activities at the superblock construction site in downtown San Diego and achievement of regulatory closure with the County of San Diego Department of Environmental Health. 2198 Market Street, San Francisco, California Phase I and II Environmental Site Assessments, supplemental subsurface investigation, Site Mitigation Plan development, contaminated soil management and disposal concurrent with site construction activities and negotiation/achievement of regulatory closure with the City of San Francisco Department of Public Health.
Former EZ Serve, 9305 Mission Gorge Road, Santee, California Closure report preparation and San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board interface and negotiation/achievement of regulatory closure under State of California lowthreat policy.
French Field Former Vista Burn Dump, Oceanside, California Oversight of the capping of a former burn dump/landfill facility and restoration for public use as a sports facility. Negotiation and achievement of regulatory closure with the California Department of Toxic Substances Control with concurrence from the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board and the County of San Diego Local Enforcement Agency.
Indoor Skydiving Facility, 1401 Imperial Avenue, San Diego, California Development of Soil Management Plan and contaminated soil management and disposal concurrent with site construction activities in downtown San Diego.
Lemon Grove Avenue Realignment Project, Lemon Grove, California Development of Impacted Soil Management Plan, Community Health and Safety Plan and Worker Health and Safety Plan and oversight of the implementation of such plans during construction activities.
North Side Interior Road and Utilities Project at San Diego International Airport, San Diego, California - Subsurface assessment, development of Soil Management Plan and Work Health and Safety Plan and implementation and monitoring of soil management strategies.
Olympic and Hill, Los Angeles, California Removal of multiple underground storage tanks and underlying contaminated soil and achievement of regulatory closure with the City of Los Angeles Fire Department.
San Ysidro - U.S. Land Port of Entry, San Diego, California Subsurface assessment and development and implementation of soil management strategies.
VA Medical Center Long Beach, 5901 East 7th Street, Long Beach, California - VA Long Beach: Seismic Corrections Mental Health, Community Living Center and Chiller Replacements Project Asbestos containing materials and leadbased paint surveys and preparation of abatement contractor bid specifications.
Exhibit C
534
Attachment "3"
812
Item8.
Appendix G Scoping Agreement for
Transportation Studies
Exhibit C
535
Attachment "3"
813
Item8.
APPENDIX A A
Scoping Agreement for Transportation Studies
PART 1
General Project Information and Description
Project Information
Project Name: Hamilton Ln 5-Lot TSM
Project Location: SE Corner of Bernardo Ave & Hamilton Ln Project Description
Land Uses and Intensities: 5 SFR with 5 ADU on 5-lots
Gross and Developable Acreage: 6.2 ac / 5 ac
Building Square Footage or Number of Dwelling Units:
Vehicle Parking Spaces: 15
Bicycle Parking Spaces: 0
Motorcycle Spaces: 0
Electric Vehicle Spaces:0
Project Applicant:
Name: Hamilton Bernardo, LLC
Address: PO Box 1795, La Jolla, CA 92038
Telephone and Email: 858-699-9311 / [email protected] Consultant
Firm: Mizuta Traffic Consulting
Project Manager: Marc Mizuta, PE, TE, PTOE
Address: 5694 Mission Center Rd #602-121, San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone and Email: 858-752-8212 / [email protected] Project Trip Generation
Source: SANDAG Pass-by Trips: n/a
Total Daily Trips*: 80 Diverted Trips: n/a
Internal Capture Rate: 0 Trip Credit: 0
Alternative Modes: n/a Net New Daily Trips: 80
*If truck traffic accounts for 25% or more of project trips, then a Passenger Car Equivalent (PCE) factor of 2.5 should be applied to all truck trips.
General Plan Consistency
Is this project consistent with the General Plan? Yes No Exhibit C
536
Attachment "3"
814
Item8.
Site Plan
Attach 11x17 copies of the project location/vicinity map and site plan containing the following:
Driveway locations and access type
Pedestrian access, bicycle access, and on-site pedestrian circulation Location and distance to nearest existing transit stop (measure as walking distance to project entrance or middle of parcel)
Location of planned or proposed pedestrian or bicycle improvements within ¼ mile of the project identified in the General Plan Mobility and Infrastructure Element or the Bicycle Master Plan CEQA Transportation Analysis Screening
Project Type Screening Criteria for CEQA Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT) Analysis 1) Select the Land Uses that apply to your project
2) Answer the questions for each Land Use that applies to yourproject (if Yes in any land use category below then that land use (or a portion of the land use) is screened from CEQA VMT Analysis; If a project is screened out, a technical memorandum is still required to document the screening process) Yes No
1. Small Residential and Employment Projects:
a. Does the project result in 200 daily trips or less?
2. Project is Located in a Transit-Accessible Area:
a. Is the project located within a half-mile walking distance of an existing major transit stop or an existing stop along a high-quality transit corridor? b. Additional project features:
i. Does the 0.75?
ii. Does project include the least amount of parkingrequired for residents, customers, or employees (i.e. not more than required)? iii. Is the project consistent with SANDAGs most recent Sustainable Communities Strategy or the City of Escondido GeneralPlan? iv. Does the project replace affordable residential units with a greater number of moderate- or high-income residential units?
v. Does the project have basic walking and biking accessto transit (e.g., sidewalks connecting to transit stops)?
3. Project is in a VMT-Efficient Area:
a. Is the project in a VMT/Capita or VMT/Employee Efficient Area per SANDAG screening maps?
4. Locally-Serving Retail Project:
a. Is the project less than 50,000 square feet and expected to draw at least 75% of customers from the local area?
5. Locally Serving Public Facility:
a. Is the project a locally serving public facility?
6. Redevelopment Project:
a. Does the project result in a net decrease in total Project VMT than the existing use?
Exhibit C
537
Attachment "3"
815
Item8.
Non-CEQA Local Mobility Analysis
Local Mobility Analysis (LMA) Requirement
1) Select the Street Classifications for each street in the studyarea 2) Answer the questions for each Street Classification that applies to your project Yes No
1. Prime Arterial:
a. Does the project add 900 ADT or more to any segment classified as 8-lane Prime Arterial?
b. Does the project add 800 ADT or more to any segment classified as 6-lane Prime Arterial?
2. Major Road:
a. Does the project add 700 ADT or more to any segment classified as 6-lane Major Road?
b. Does the project add 500 ADT or more to any segment classified as 4-lane Major Road?
3. Collector:
a. Does the project add 500 ADT or more to any segment classified as 4-lane Collector without parking?
b. Does the project add 250 ADT or more to any segment classified as 4-lane Collector with parking?
4. Local Collector and other:
a. Does the project add 200 ADT or more to any segment classified as 2-lane Local Collector or any other classifications?
Certain types of projects which generate less than 500 ADT may be considered by the City staff for an LMA waiver only where the affected segments and intersections operate at LOS C or better.
Please briefly explain why your project might be eligible for an LMA waiver.
PART 2 (n/a)
Trip Distribution and Trip Assignment
Select Zone (Model Series ) Projects that generate greater than 2,400 daily trips Manual Estimation Projects that generate less than 2,400 daily trips Provide an exhibit detailing the projects trip distribution and trip assignment.
Provide a table with the projects daily trip assignment for each street segment in the study area.
Exhibit C
538
Attachment "3"
816
Item8.
Study Intersections and Roadway Segments (NOTE: Subject to change based of staff review)
1. 6.
2. 7.
3. 8.
4. 9.
5. 10.
Attach a separate page if the number of study locations exceeds 10.
Other Jurisdictions
Is this project located within one mile of another Local Jurisdiction? Yes No If yes, name of Jurisdiction:
Specific Issues to be addressed within the Study
(in addition to requirements described in the Guidelines to be filled out by City Staff)
1. 2.
3. 4.
5. Recommended by:
Consultants Representative Date
Scoping Agreement Submitted on
Date
Scoping Agreement Re-submitted on
Date
Approved Scoping Agreement:
City of Escondido Date
Transportation Specialist
C lt t
ecommended by:
R t t
Exhibit C
539
Attachment "3"
817
Item8.
PREPARED BY: M A S S O N ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO: LEGAL DESCRIPTION: OWNER/APPLICANT: VICINITY MAP PROJECT DESCRIPTION Exhibit C 540
Attachment "3"
818
Item8.
% ADT % ADT
Single Family Detached 10 trips / du 8% 0.30 : 0.70 10% 0.70 : 0.30 Apartment 6 trips / du 8% 0.20 : 0.80 9% 0.70 : 0.30
In Out In Out
Single Family Detached 5 50 2 2 4 1
ADU 5 30 1 2 3 0
80 3 4 7 1
Notes:
TRIP GENERATION CALCULATIONS
Land Use Amount ADT
AM PEAK PM PEAK
Total Total
TRIP GENERATION RATES1 Land Use Weekday Daily
AM PEAK PM PEAK
In:Out Ratio In:Out Ratio
1. The trip rates are based on SANDAG's Brief Guide of Vehicular Trip Generation Rates for the San Diego Region, April 2002. du: dwelling unit
TOTAL 7 8
du 3 3
Proposed Use
du 4 5
Exhibit C
541
Attachment "3"
819
Item8.
Bicycle Network LEGEND Project Site 0.25-mile radius Source: City of Escondido Bicycle Master Plan, Figure ES 1 Exhibit C 542
Attachment "3"
820
Item8.
Circulation Element
LEGEND
Project Site
Exhibit C
543
Attachment "3"
821
Item8.
1 Hamilton Bernardo, LLC Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Project Impact 2007 Mitigation Measure Responsible Department Monitoring Action Implementation Schedule Verification of Completion Check Box Date Air Quality The project will potentially impact air quality in the area surrounding the project during construction. Prior to construction and issuance of grading and building permits, a site-specific analysis and report shall be prepared by a qualified professional to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works and Building Official to determine equipment and methods necessary to protect adjacent properties from adverse air quality impacts which may result from construction. A project-specific air quality analysis was prepared for the project and provided as part of the discussion in Section 14.3, Air Quality. The proposed project would have no adverse effect on air quality. This mitigation measure has been satisfied. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Biological Resources No non-native grassland or coastal sage scrub vegetation was reported in the Biological Resources Memorandum prepared by Tierra Data, Inc., July 2024. These habitat types no longer occur on the site. Mitigation from the 2007 Initial Study pertaining to BIO-1 and BIO-2. To address direct impacts to non-native grasslands and coastal sage scrub, the proposed mitigation ratio is 0.25:1 for non-native grasslands and 1:1 for coastal sage scrub. This would be documented by a purchase of habitat credits from an approved mitigation bank(s). Mitigation measures BIO-1 and BIO-2 would be enforced at the City’s discretion. City of Escondido Planning Department Verify a purchase of mitigation credits. Prior to grading permit 544 Attachment "3"
822
Item8.
Hamilton Bernardo, LLC Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Project Impact 2007 Mitigation Measure Responsible Department Monitoring Action Implementation Schedule Verification of Completion Check Box Date non-native grassland and coastal sage scrub remains applicable. Multiple trees would be removed; however, the Project would be in compliance with City’s Municipal Code requirements for trees. Regardless, for each Live Oak tree removed, the tree would be replaced on-site and one additional tree would be planted on-site as so stated in the 2007 Initial Study. BIO-3. Impacts to native Live Oaks trees will be mitigated by relocating the four Live Oaks on-site and planting four new Live Oak trees on-site. City of Escondido Building Department Verify that replacement oak trees are shown on the landscape plan and confirm prior to final approval of landscaping installation. Prior to final approval of landscape installation. Multiple trees would be removed to accommodate the proposed project. A preconstruction nesting survey would be required consistent with the 2007 Initial Study. BIO-4. A qualified biologist must inspect trees for nests prior to any brushing, grading, tree relocation or construction within close proximity to, or within the existing Oaks discussed in the Biological Report's addendum of 2/14/07. If any active nests of sensitive species are found, no impacts will be allowed until all young have fledged. City of Escondido Building Department Verify receipt of preconstruction survey report. Prior to final approval of the grading permit. The proposed project would replace Live Oak trees removed BIO-5. The applicant shall provide funding to the satisfaction of the City for the five-year monitoring of the oak trees with sufficient City of Escondido Planning Department Verify that funds have been provided to cover Prior to final approval of landscape City of Escondido 545 Attachment "3"
823
Item8.
Hamilton Bernardo, LLC Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Project Impact 2007 Mitigation Measure Responsible Department Monitoring Action Implementation Schedule Verification of Completion Check Box Date during construction at a 1:1 ratio on-site and plant one additional Live Oak tree as mitigation for impacts to Live Oak tree impacts. reserve for the replacement of any dead/dying stock. 5-year monitoring of oak trees. installation. Hazards Project is near the Chatham Barrel Yard (a Superfund Cleanup Site). The project site has one County Monitoring well to that is to remain. Monitoring well MW57 is to remain onsite and be accessible to the Chatham Brothers RP Group for monitoring purposes until officially released. Upon release, it is to be removed per Regional Board and City of Escondido standards. Alternately, if a new replacement well is installed nearby and approved by the Regional Board and Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), existing well MW57 can also then be released and removed per Regional Board and City of Escondido standards. MW 57 was decommissioned as documented in a letter provided by Chatham Site PRP Group dated May 21, 2009. This mitigation measure is not applicable. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Hydrology/Water Quality Potable water would be provided by the City of Escondido Water Department. HYD-1. No drinking water wells shall be drilled on-site and no excavations shall be allowed on-site without proper permits. City of Escondido Building Department Verify that no excavations occurred prior to receipt of the Prior to issuance of the grading permit. 546 Attachment "3"
824
Item8.
Hamilton Bernardo, LLC Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Project Impact 2007 Mitigation Measure Responsible Department Monitoring Action Implementation Schedule Verification of Completion Check Box Date No wells would be drilled on-site. applicable. grading permit. 547 Attachment "3"
825
Item8.
E
PLANNING CASE NO PL24-0067
FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED / FINDINGS OF FACT
Environmental Determinations:
1. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code section regulations (14 C.C.R. § 15000 et seq.)
2. In order to evaluate the previous 5-Lot Tentative Subdivision Project proposed on the subject site, under the California Environmental Quality Act ( CEQA ), an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration ( ) (City Log No. ER2005-33) was adopted by the Escondido City Council.
3. CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 allows for a lead agency to prepare an Addendum to a previously certified environmental document if some changes or additions to the project are necessary, but none of the conditions described in CEQA Section 15162 requiring preparation of a subsequent environmental document are present. The Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the adopted IS/MND, and the attached Project Addendum , and finds that these documents taken together contain a complete and accurate reporting of all of the environmental impacts associated with the modified Project, described herein. The Planning Commission further finds that the First Addendum and administrative record have been completed in compliance with CEQA, and that the adopted IS/MND
judgement.
4. Based on substantial evidence set forth in the record, including, but not limited to the 2007 IS/MND and the attached First Addendum, the Planning Commission finds that, based on the whole record before them, none of the conditions under CEQA Guidelines Section 15162-15163, requiring subsequent environmental review, have occurred because the modified Project:
a. Will not result in substantial changes that would require major revisions of the 2007 IS/MND due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; b. Will not result in substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is developed that would require major revisions of the 2007 IS/MND due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of the previously identified significant effects; 548
Attachment "3"
826
Item8.
c. Does not present new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the 2007 IS/MND was certified and was approved showing any of the following:
i. The Project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous negative declaration;
ii. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous IS/MND;
iii. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the Project, but the Project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or
iv. Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous IS/MND would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the Project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.
5. Further, based on the substantial evidence set forth in the record, including but not limited to the 2007 adopted IS/MND and the First Addendum prepared for the Project, the Planning Commission finds that the applicable mitigation measures identified in the 2007 IS/MND would ensure that any potential impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels. No new mitigation measures are required to mitigate environmental impacts consideration of the Project, as outlined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 and 15164.
6. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, subdivision (c), the Addendum is not required to be circulated for public review, but can be attached to the original 2007 IS/MND.
7. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081.6(a)(2) and CEQA Guidelines section 15091(e), all documents and other materials which constitute the record of proceedings are located at the City of Escondido, City Hall. The City Clerk, whose office is located at 201 North Broadway, Escondido CA 92025, is hereby designated as the custodian of the documents and other materials which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the available for public inspection and copying in accordance with the provisions of the California Public Records Act.
TENTATIVE MAP DETERMINATIONS (PL24-0067)
(Subdivision Map Act and Chapter 32 of the Escondido Municipal Code) With respect to Planning Case No. PL24-0067, the Planning Commission makes the finding that none of the findings (a) through (g) below in Section 66474 of the California Government Code that require a City to deny approval of a Tentative Subdivision Map apply to this Project for the reasons stated as follows:
549
Attachment "3"
827
Item8.
As detailed in the Planning Commission staff report dated April 28, 2026, the Project site is located within the Estate I (E1) General Plan land use designation which permits density on a sliding scale depending on the existing slope categories of a site. Based on a review of the Project six units; however, the addition of a private road and bioretention basin as required for stormwater reduces density yield to five (5) dwelling units (per Article 32).
Use Map. Therefore, the Project is consistent with this Finding.
The Project consists of five (5) residential lots for future development with single-family residence, which single-family residential is permitted by the Escondido Zoning Code (EZC), and consistent with the General Plan Estate I land use designation. The subdivision for the residential lots consists of
Association (HOA). The design of the private road as shown on the Tentative Map is designed to meet City engineering standards, and the standards for the Escondido Fire Department. The Project is conditioned to comply with City standards related to street design. Therefore, the Project is consistent with this Finding.
The Project site is approximately 6.02 gross acres consisting of slope categories mainly within the 0-15% range. Four (4) of the five (5) lots would take access from the proposed private road easement, while the remaining lot would take access from Bernardo Avenue to the west. All lots meet the standards required for residential development, and no unusual circumstances exist that would prohibit or constrain residential development on site. Furthermore, the site is physically suitable in that the proposed lot designs comply with EZC requirements for the R-1 zone pertaining to required minimum lot size and width.
The Project includes a Tentative Subdivision Map to subdivide one existing lot into five (5) lots, one which contains the bioretention basin for private drainage. As detailed in the Planning Commission staff report dated April 28, 2026, the Project site is located within the E1 land use designation which permits density on a sliding scale based on the slope category of the site. The permitted density is 6 dwelling units; however, required improvements to the site reduce the feasible density to 5 units. The minimum lot size for the parcels is 40,000 square-feet, and the minimum average lot width is 150 feet, consistent with Residential Estate (RE-40) standards.
Therefore, the Project is consistent with this Finding.
5. 550
Attachment "3"
828
Item8.
Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an Addendum was prepared to the 2007 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND), which analyzed the minor change to the previously approved project, Tract 931 (2005-06-AN, 2005-46-PZ, ER2005-33). The minor change, the addition of a bioretention basin for stormwater drainage, is not anticipated to result in substantial environmental impacts to the site, in that it is a requirement of state law regulating water runoff and water quality regulations that did not exist at the time of the original approval. All potential environmental impacts previously identified under the adopted IS/MND are required to be mitigated accordingly. Therefore, the Project is consistent with this Finding.
6. The Project as designed is not anticipated to cause any public health problems. Further, the Project has been conditioned to prohibit the drilling of drinking wells on site as well as excavations.
Therefore, the Project is consistent with this finding.
7. There are several easements that run throughout the proposed subdivision and Project site; however, none have been acquired by the public at large, and are all intended for private use.
The design of the subdivision and improvements as proposed would not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large. Therefore, the Project is consistent with this Finding.
8. The Project consists of a request for a Tentative Subdivision Map. Approval of the Project would result in all permits applicable to the proposed Tentative Map being obtained, or conditioned to be obtained administratively as permitted by the Escondido Zoning Code. The Escondido Zoning Code does not require subdivisions of land to include architectural plotting of future residential uses. Therefore, the Project is conditioned to comply with requirements of Article 64 (Design Review) where architectural plotting would be approved administratively subject to Zoning Code requirements. Therefore, the Project is consistent with this Finding.
9. The Project does not include the conversion of existing buildings into condominiums or stock cooperatives. This finding for approval of a Tentative Map is not applicable to the Project.
10. 551
Attachment "3"
829
Item8.
As detailed in the Planning Commission staff report dated April 28, 2026, the Project complies with all requirements of the Residential Estate 40,000 (RE-40) zone, including minimum lot size, lot width, and density. Further, the proposed Tentative Map is not an existing legal nonconforming multi-family residential use. Therefore, the Project is consistent with this Finding.
11. An Addendum to the previously adopted IS/MND was prepared in conformance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, and none of the triggers listed in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 requiring the preparation of further environmental document apply. Therefore, the Project is consistent with this Finding.
No Net Loss Finding
(Government Code section 65683)
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65863, the finds the following:
The Project site (Assessor Parcel No. 238-360-68-00) is identified in the Housing Element to accommodate a portion of the regional housing need. The estimated capacity on the Project site is as follows:
Very-low Low Moderate Above Moderate
The Project does not reduce the density of the site below what is projected in the Housing Element; the Housing Element shows a site capacity of 5 above-moderate income units, which matches the proposed Project.
Very-low Low Moderate Above Moderate
Sites
Inventory
capacity for
Project site
5 Proposed
Units
Change in
units +/(-)
The proposed development's residential density is consistent with the Housing Element, and the remaining sites identified in the Housing Element are adequate to meet the requirements of 552
Attachment "3"
830
Item8.
Government Code Section 65583.2 and to accommodate the City's share of the regional housing need pursuant to Section 65584.
553
Attachment "3"
831
Item8.
F
PLANNING CASE NO. PL24-0067
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
This Project is conditionally approved as set forth on the application received by the City of Escondido on March 12, 2024, and the Project drawings consisting of Civil Sheets/Grading, Stormwater, and Landscape Plans; all designated as approved on April 28, 2026, and shall not be altered without express authorization by the Development Services Department.
For the Applicant Project proponent, owner,
permittee, and successors in interest, as may be applicable.
A. General:
1. Acceptance of Permit. If the Applicant fails to file a timely and valid appeal of this Permit within the applicable appeal period, such inaction by the Applicant shall be deemed to constitute all of the following on behalf of the Applicant:
a. Acceptance of the Permit by the Applicant; and
b. Agreement by the Applicant to be bound by, to comply with, and to do all things required of or by the Applicant pursuant to all of the terms, provisions, and conditions of this Project Permit or other approval and the provisions of the Escondido Municipal Code or Zoning Code applicable to such Permit.
2. Permit Expiration. If the Permit was filed as or concurrent with a Tentative Map or Planned Development application, the Permit shall expire 36 months from the effective date of approval, unless additional time is granted pursuant to the Map Act or to the Escondido Municipal Code.
If not filed as concurrent with a Tentative Map or Planned Development application, the Permit shall automatically expire after one year from the date of this approval, or the expiration date of any extension granted in accordance with the Escondido Municipal Code and Zoning Code.
The Permit shall be deemed expired if a building permit has not been obtained or work has been discontinued in the reliance of that building permit. If no building permits are required, the City may require a noticed hearing to be scheduled before the authorized agency to determine if there has been demonstrated a good faith intent to proceed, pursuant to and in accordance with the provision of this Permit.
3. Certification. The Director of Development Services, or his/her designee, is authorized and directed to make, or require the Applicant to make, all corrections and modifications to the Project drawings and any other relevant document comprising the Project in its entirety, as necessary to make them internally consistent and in conformity with the final action on the Project. This includes amending the Project drawings as necessary to incorporate revisions made by the 554
Attachment "3"
832
Item8.
decision-making body and/or reflecting any modifications identified in these conditions of approval. A final Approved Plan set, shall be submitted to Planning Services for certification electronically. Said plans must be certified by the Planning Division prior to submittal of any post-entitlement permit, including grading, public improvement, landscape, or building plans for the Project.
4. Conformance to Approved Plans.
a. The operation and use of the subject property shall be consistent with the Project Description and Details of Request, designated with the Approved Plan set. b. Nothing in this Permit shall authorize the Applicant to intensify the authorized activity beyond that which is specifically described in this Permit. c. Once a permit has been issued, the Applicant may request inor" modifications may be granted if found by the Director of Development Services to be in substantial conformity with the Approved Plan set, including all exhibits and Permit conditions attached hereto.
substantial conformance process identified by the Planning Division. Modifications beyond the scope described in the Approved Plan set may require submittal of an amendment to the Permit and approval by the authorized agency.
5. Limitations on Use. Prior to any use of the Project site pursuant to this Permit, all Conditions of Approval contained herein shall be completed or secured to the satisfaction of the Development Services Department.
6. Certificate of Occupancy.
a. No change in the character of occupancy or change to a different group of occupancies as described by the Building Code shall be made without first obtaining a Certificate of Occupancy from the Building Official, as required, and any such change in occupancy must comply with all other applicable local and state laws. b. Prior to final occupancy, a Planning Final Inspection shall be completed to ensure that the property is in full compliance with the Permit terms and conditions. The findings of the inspection shall be documented on a form and content satisfactory to the Director of Development Services.
7. Availability of Permit Conditions.
a. Prior to grading permit issuance, the Applicant shall cause a covenant regarding real property to be recorded that sets forth the terms and conditions of this Permit approval and shall be of a form and content satisfactory to the Director of Development Services. 555
Attachment "3"
833
Item8.
b. The Applicant shall make a copy of the terms conditions of this Permit readily available to any member of the public or City staff upon request. Said terms and conditions shall be printed on any construction plans that are submitted to the Building Division for plan check processing.
8. Right to Entry. The holder of this Permit shall make the premises available for inspection by City staff during construction or operating hours and allow the investigations of property necessary to ensure that minimum codes, regulations, local ordinances and safety requirements are properly followed. The Applicant shall provide such business records, licenses, and other materials necessary upon request to provide evidence of compliance with the conditions of approval, as well as federal, state, or laws.
9. Compliance with Federal, State, and Local Laws. Nothing in this Permit shall relieve the Applicant from complying with conditions, performance standards, and regulations generally imposed upon activities similar in nature to the activity authorized by this permit. (Permits from ) This Permit
does not relieve the Applicant of the obligation to comply with all applicable statutes, regulations, and procedures in effect at the time that any engineering permits or building permits are issued unless specifically waived herein.
No part of this approval shall be construed to permit a violation of any part of the Escondido Municipal or Zoning Code. During Project construction and after Project completion, the Applicant shall ensure the subject land use activities covered by this Permit is conducted in full compliance with all local and state laws.
10. Fees. The appropriate development fees and Citywide Facility fees shall be paid in accordance with the prevailing fee schedule in effect at the time of building permit issuance, to the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services. Through plan check processing, the Applicant shall pay development fees at the established rate. Such fees may include, but not be limited to:
Permit and Plan Checking Fees, Water and Sewer Service Fees, School Fees, Traffic Mitigation Fees, Flood Control Mitigation Fees, Park Mitigation Fees, Fire Mitigation/Cost Recovery Fees, and other fees listed in the Fee Schedule, which may be amended. Arrangements to pay these fees shall be made prior to building permit issuance to the satisfaction of the Development Services Department.
Approval of this development project is conditioned upon payment of all applicable development fees and connection fees in the manner provided in Chapter 6 of the Escondido Municipal Code.
11. Public Art Partnership Program. All requirements of the Public Art Partnership Program, Ordinance No. 86-70 shall be satisfied prior to any building permit issuance. The ordinance requires that a public art fee be added at the time of the building permit issuance for the purpose of participating in the City Public Art Program.
12. Clerk Recording.
556
Attachment "3"
834
Item8.
a. State Law (SB 1535), effective January 1, 2007, requires certain projects to pay fees for purposes of funding the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. If the Project is found to have a significant impact to wildlife resources and/or sensitive habitat, in accordance with State law, or if the Project was analyzed through a negative declaration or environmental impact report, the Applicant shall remit to the City of Escondido Planning Services, within two working days of the effective date of the adoption of the environme
in full within the specified time noted above will result in County notification to the State that a fee was required but not paid, and could result in State imposed penalties and recovery under the provisions of the Revenue and Taxation code. In addition, Section 21089(b) of the Public Resources Code, and Section 711.4(c) of the Fish and Game Code provide that no project shall be operative, vested, or final until all the required filing fees are paid. The filing fees for other environmental review documents are adjusted annually by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. If the fee increase after the date of this approval, the Applicant shall be responsible for the increase.
b. For more information on filing fees, please refer
California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 753.5.
13. Legal Description Adequacy. The legal description attached to the application has been provided by the Applicant and neither the City of Escondido nor any of its employees assume responsibility for the accuracy of said legal description.
14. Application Accuracy. The information contained in the application and all attached materials are assumed to be correct, true, and complete. The City of Escondido is relying on the accuracy of this information and Project-related representations in order to process this application. Any permits issued by the City may be rescinded if it is determined that the information and materials submitted are not true and correct. The Applicant may be liable for any costs associated with rescission of such permits.
15. Enforcement. If any of the terms, covenants, or conditions contained herein shall fail to occur or if they are, by their terms, to be implemented and maintained over time, the City of Escondido shall have the right to deny or withhold subsequent permit approvals or permit inspections that are derived from the application entitlements herein granted; issue stop work orders; pursue abatement orders, penalties, or other administrative remedies as set forth in state and local laws; or institute and prosecute litigation to compel compliance with such terms, covenants, or conditions or seek damages for their violation. The Applicant shall be notified in advance prior to any of the above actions being taken by the City and shall be given the opportunity to remedy any deficiencies identified by the City.
16. Indemnification, Hold Harmless, Duty to Defend.
557
Attachment "3"
835
Item8.
a. The Applicant shall indemnify, hold harmless, and defend (with counsel reasonably acceptable to the City) the City, its Councilmembers, Planning Commissioners, boards, commissions, departments, officials, officers, agents, employees, and volunteers (collec
actions, causes of action, proceedings (including but not limited to legal and administrative proceedings of any kind), suits, fines, penalties, judgments, orders, levies, costs, expenses, liabilities, losses, damages, or injuries, at law or in equity, including used by,
arising out of, or in connection with (i) any business, work, conduct, act, omission, or lessees, invitees,
agents, consultants, employees, or volunteers), or such activity of any other person that is permitted by the Applicant or owner of the Property, occurring in, on, about, or adjacent to the Property; (ii) any use of the Property, or any accident, injury, death, or damage to any person or property occurring in, on, or about the Property; or (iii) any default in the performance of any obligation of the Applicant or the owner of the Property to be performed pursuant to any condition of approval for the Project or agreement related to the Project, or any such claim, action, or proceeding brought thereon. Provided, however, that the Applicant shall have no obligation to indemnify, hold harmless, or defend the City as to any Claims that arise from the sole negligence or willful misconduct of the City. In the event any such Claims are brought against the City, the Applicant, upon receiving notice from the City, shall defend the same at its sole expense by counsel reasonably acceptable to the City and shall indemnify the City for any and all administrative and litigation costs incurred by the City itself, the costs for staff time expended, and ide counsel, who may be selected by the City at its sole and absolute discretion and who may defend the City against any Claims in the manner the City deems to be in the best interests of the City).
b. The Applicant further and separately agrees to and shall indemnify, hold harmless, and defend the City (including all Indemnified Parties) from and against any and all Claims brought by any third party to challenge the Project or its approval by the City, including but not limited to any Claims related to
environmental review documents, or any other action taken by the City regarding environmental clearance for the Project or any of the Project approvals. Such nt for any and all administrative and
litigation costs and expenses incurred by the City in defending against any such Claims, including payment for all administrative and litigation costs incurred by the City itself, the costs for staff time expended, and reasonable attorney's fees (including the full selected by the City at its sole and absolute discretion and who may defend the City against any Claims in the manner the City deems to be in the best interests of the City and the Project).
558
Attachment "3"
836
Item8.
c. The City, in its sole discretion and upon providing notice to the Applicant, may require the Applicant to deposit with the City an amount estimated to cover costs, expenses, and fees (includ
Claims referenced herein, which shall be placed into a deposit account from which the City may draw as such costs, expenses, and fees are incurred. Within 14 days after receiving written notice from the City, the Applicant shall replenish the deposit account in the amount the City determines is necessary in the context of the further defense of such Claims. To the extent such deposit is required by the City, the amount of such deposit and related terms and obligations shall be expressed in a written Deposit Account reasonable discretion, shall determine the amount of any initial deposits or subsequent deposits of funds, and the Applicant may provide documentation or information for the City to consider in making its determinations. Nothing within this subsection shall be armless, or defend
the City as otherwise stated herein.
17. Phasing. A phasing plan shall be submitted for all projects which include more than one building.
The phasing plan shall identify the order in which all on- and off-site improvements will be installed, including triggers for improvements resulting from mitigation measures placed on the project through the environmental review process or required for General Plan conformance.
The plan shall also identify the order in which structures will be built and occupied, the location of construction fencing at each phase of construction, and any other means necessary to prevent conflicts between construction traffic and users of the occupied buildings. The phasing plan shall be approved by the City Planner, Building Official, City Engineer and Fire Marshal prior to the issuance of a grading permit for the project. The phasing plan shall not be modified without written consent from the City of Escondido.
B. Construction, Maintenance, and Operation Obligations:
1. Code Requirements. All construction shall comply with the applicable requirements of the Escondido Municipal Code, Escondido Zoning Code, California Building Code; and the requirements of the Planning Division, Engineering Services Department, Director of Development Services, Building Official, City Engineer, and the Fire Chief in carrying out the administration of said codes. Approval of this Permit request shall not waive compliance with any City regulations in effect at the time of Building Permit issuance unless specifically waived herein.
As a condition of receiving the land use approvals specified herein, Applicant shall maintain the property subject to the approvals in compliance with all applicable city codes governing the condition or appearance of property. In addition to compliance with such basic standards, the property subject to these approvals shall also be maintained free of trash, plant debris, weeds, and concrete (other than existing foundations and permanent structures). Any signs placed on the property advertising such property for sale or rent shall be in accordance with applicable laws, and be kept clean, in like-new condition, and free from fading and graffiti at all times. This 559
Attachment "3"
837
Item8.
condition shall be applicable from the date the land use is approved. The failure to comply with this condition shall subject the approvals specified herein to revocation for failure to comply.
2. Agency License and Permitting. In order to make certain on- or off-site improvements associated with the Approved Plan set, the Permit request may require review and clearance from other agencies. Nothing in these Conditions of Approval shall be construed as to waive compliance with other government agency regulations or to obtain permits from other agencies to make certain on- or off-site improvements prior to Final Map recordation, grading permit issuance, building permit issuance, or certificate of occupancy as required. This review may result in conditions determined by the reviewing agency.
At all times during the effective period of this Permit, the Applicant and any affiliated responsible party shall obtain and maintain in valid force and effect, each and every license and permit required by a governmental agency for the construction, maintenance, and operation of the authorized activity.
3. Utilities. All new utilities and utility runs shall be underground, or fee payment in-lieu subject to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
4. Signage. All proposed signage associated with the Project must comply with Article 66 (Sign Ordinance) of the Escondido Zoning Code. Separate sign permits will be required for Project signage. All non-conforming signs shall be removed. The Applicant shall submit with any sign permit graphic/list of all signs to be removed and retained, along with any new signage proposed.
5. Noise. All P - 08).
6. Lighting. All exterior lighting shall conform to the requirements of Article 35 (Outdoor Lighting Ordinance) of the Escondido Zoning Code.
7. General Property Maintenance. The property owner or management company shall maintain the property in good visual and functional condition. This shall include, but not be limited to, all exterior elements of the buildings such as paint, roof, paving, signs, lighting and landscaping.
The Applicant shall paint and re-paint all building exteriors, accessory equipment, and utility boxes servicing the Project, as necessary to maintain clean, safe, and efficient appearances.
8. Anti-Graffiti. The Applicant shall remove all graffiti from buildings and wall surfaces within 48 hours of defacement, including all areas of the job site for when the Project is under construction.
9. Anti-Litter. The site and surrounding area shall be maintained free of litter, refuse, and debris.
Cleaning shall include keeping all publicly used areas free of litter, trash, and garbage.
10. Roof, Wall, and Ground Level Equipment. All mechanical equipment shall be screened and concealed from view in accordance with Section 33-1085 of the Escondido Zoning Code. 560
Attachment "3"
838
Item8.
11. Trash Enclosures. All appropriate trash enclosures or other approved trash systems shall be approved by Planning and Engineering Services. The property owner or management company shall be responsible for ensuring that enclosures are easily assessable for garbage and recyclables collection; and that the area is managed in a clean, safe, and efficient manner. Trash enclosure covers shall be closed when not in use. Trash enclosures shall be regularly emptied.
There shall be the prompt removal of visible signs of overflow of garbage, smells emanating from enclosure, graffiti, pests, and vermin.
12. Staging Construction Areas. All staging areas shall be conducted on the subject property, subject to approval of the Engineering Department. Off-site staging areas, if any, shall be approved through the issuance of an off-site staging area permit/agreement.
13. Disturbance Coordinator. The Applicant shall designate and provide a point-of-contact whose responsibilities shall include overseeing the implementation of Project, compliance with Permit terms and conditions, and responding to neighborhood concerns.
14. Construction Waste Reduction, Disposal, and Recycling. Applicant shall recycle or salvage for reuse a minimum of 65% of the non-hazardous construction and demolition waste for residential projects or portions thereof in accordance with either Section 4.408.2, 4.408.3, or
4.408.4 of the California Green Building Standards Code; and/or for non-residential projects or portions thereof in accordance with either Section 5.408.1.1, 5.408.1.2, or 5.408.1.3 of the California Green Building Standards Code. In order to ensure compliance with the waste diversion goals for all residential and non-residential construction projects, the Applicant must submit appropriate documentation as described in Section 4.408.5 of the California Green Building Standards Code for residential projects or portions thereof, or Section 5.408.1.4 for nonresidential projects or portions thereof, demonstrating compliance with the California Green Building Standards Code sections cited above.
15. Construction Equipment Emissions. Applicant shall incorporate measures that reduce construction and operational emissions.
grading permits for the Project, the Applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Planning Division that its construction contractor will use a construction fleet wherein all 50-horsepower or greater dieselcertified Tier 4 Interim engines or equipment outfitted with CARB-verified diesel particulate filters. An exemption from this requirement may be granted if (i) the Applicant provides documentation demonstrating that equipment with Tier 4 Interim engines are not reasonably available, and (ii) functionally equivalent diesel PM emission totals can be achieved for the Project from other combinations of construction equipment. Before an exemption may be Director of Development Services that (i) at least two construction fleet owners/operators in San Diego County were contacted and those owners/operators confirmed Tier 4 Interim equipment could not be located within San Diego County during the desired construction schedule, and (ii) the proposed replacement equipment has been evaluated using the California Emissions 561
Attachment "3"
839
Item8.
documentation provided to Planning Services confirms that necessary project-generated functional equivalencies in the diesel PM emissions level are achieved.
C. Parking and Loading/Unloading.
1. Upon construction of the dwelling units, a minimum of two off-street covered parking spaces shall be provided for each parcel at all times. Said parking spaces provided by the Applicant, and any additional parking spaces provided above the required minimum amount, shall be dimensioned per City standards and be maintained in a clean, well-marked condition. The striping shall be drawn on the plans or a note shall be included indicating double-striping per City standards.
2. No contractor or employee may store, or permit to be stored, a commercial or construction vehicle/truck; or personal vehicle, truck, or other personal property on public-right-of-way or other public property without permission of the City Engineer.
D. Landscaping: The property owner or management company assumes all responsibility for maintaining all on-site landscaping; any landscaping in the public right-of-way adjacent to the property, including potted plants; and any retaining and freestanding walls in a manner that satisfies the conditions contained herein.
1. Landscaped areas shall be maintained in a flourishing manner. Appropriate irrigation shall be provided for all landscape areas and be maintained in a fully operational condition.
2. All existing planting and planter areas, including areas within the public right-of-way, shall be repaired and landscaping brought into compliance with current standards. All dead plant material shall be removed and replaced by the property owner or management company.
3. If at the time of planning final inspection that it is determined that sufficient screening is not provided, the Applicant shall be required to provide additional landscaping improvements to the satisfaction of the Planning Division.
4. The landscaped areas shall be free of all foreign matter, weeds and plant material not approved as part of the landscape plan.
5. Failure to maintain landscaping and the site in general may result in the setting of a public hearing to revoke or modify the Permit approval.
6. Landscaping Plans. Applicant shall install all required improvements including screening walls, retaining walls, storm improvements, and landscaping in substantial conformance to the planting and irrigation schedule as shown on the final Approved Plan set. a. A final landscape and irrigation plan shall be submitted to the Engineering Services Department for review and approval, if meeting any of the criteria listed under Section 33-1323 of the Zoning Code. Five copies of detailed landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Engineering Services Department with the second submittal lf the grading plan. The initial submittal of the landscape plans shall include the required plan check fees, paid in accordance with the prevailing fee schedule in effect at the time of 562
Attachment "3"
840
Item8.
submittal. Details of Project fencing and walls, including materials and colors, shall be provided on the landscape plans. (Building permits may also be required.) The landscape and irrigation plans shall be reviewed and approved by Planning Services and Engineering Services Department prior to issuance of grading permits, and shall be equivalent or superior to the conceptual landscape plans included as part of the Approved Plan set, to the satisfaction of Planning Services. The required landscape and irrigation plans(s) shall comply with the provisions, requirements and standards outlined in Article 62 (Landscape Standards) of the Escondido Zoning Code, except where stricter requirements are imposed by the State of California.
b. Screening walls, retaining walls, storm improvements, and landscaping (i.e. planting and irrigation) is to be provided prior to final occupancy. c. The installation of the landscaping and irrigation shall be inspected by the Project landscape architect upon completion. He/she shall complete a Certificate of Landscape Compliance certifying that the installation is in substantial compliance with the approved landscape and irrigation plans and City standards. The Applicant shall submit the Certificate of Compliance to Planning Services and request a final inspection. d. Any new freestanding walls and/or retaining walls shall incorporate decorative materials or finishes, and shall be indicated on the landscaping plans. (Building permits may also be required.) All freestanding walls visible from points beyond the Project site shall be treated with a protective sealant coating to facilitate graffiti removal. The sealant shall be a type satisfactory to the Director of Development Services. e. New or retrofitted trash enclosures shall accommodate vertical climbing plants, vines with support trellis panels, clinging non-deciduous or fast growing shrubbery that will screen the enclosures wall surface. The Director of Development Services shall find that the proposed landscaping design, material, or method provides approximate equivalence to the specific requirements of this condition or is otherwise satisfactory and complies with the intent of these provisions.
f. All manufactured slopes, or slopes cleared of vegetation shall be landscaped within thirty (30) days of completion of rough grading. If, for whatever reason, it is not practical to install the permanent landscaping, then an interim landscaping solution may be acceptable. The type of plant material, irrigation, and the method of application shall be to the satisfaction of Planning Services and the City Engineer. g. All slopes shall be landscaped with suitable material to control erosion. All manufactured slopes over three (3) feet in height shall be landscaped with a combination of trees, shrubs, and groundcover. Fill slopes shall have a minimum of six (6) trees, fifteen (15) gallon in size and ten (10) shrubs, five (5) gallon size per 1,000 square feet of slope area plus ground cover. Groundcover shall provide one hundred percent coverage within one year of installation. Cut slopes shall have a minimum of six (6) trees, five (5) gallon in size and ten (10) shrubs, one (1) gallon size per 1,000 square feet of slope area plus 563
Attachment "3"
841
Item8.
ground cover. Groundcover shall provide one hundred percent coverage within one year of installation. The type of plant material shall be low maintenance, dought resistant, and fast growing, to the satisfaction of Planning Services. In particular, the ground cover shall be a fast-growing species which establishes quickly and is capable of choking out weeds.
All slopes over three vertical feet shall be irrigated with an individual lot irrigation system approved by Planning and Building Services.
h. One 15-gallon street tree per 30 feet of linear frontage shall be provided along every frontage in, or adjacent to this subdivision in conformance with the Escondido Landscape Ordinance (EZC Article 62), and approved Street Tree List. Specimen size trees (min. 24-inch box per nursery standards) along with shrubs and groundcover, shall be incorporated into the landscape design along the proposed private road, Bernardo Avenue, and Hamilton Lane. The type and location of trees shall be identified on the landscape plans.
i. Any common open space areas shall be maintained through a landscape maintenance j. Any fencing proposed on individual lots shall be generally located at the top of slopes to the satisfaction of Planning Services.
E. Specific Planning Services Conditions:
a. All future habitable buildings within the subdivision shall be noise-insulated to maintain interior noise levels not to exceed 45 dBA. A final interior noise assessment shall be submitted prior to building permit issuance, and with the building plans during the plan check process, demonstrating compliance with the interior noise requirements.
Recommendations of the study shall be included in the building construction plans. b. Prior to Final Map approval, a note shall be included on the Final Map, or other documents provided, stating that the grading shall be in conformance with the submitted conceptual design.
c. No street names are a part of this approval. The Applicant shall submit a separate request prior to Final Map recordation, through the Planning service area of Develoment Services.
Street names shall be approved prior to Final Map approval. d. Administrative Design Review shall be required prior to submittal of a grading permit. The Applicant shall submit a Design Review Permit pursuant to Article 64 (Design Review) of the Escondido Zoning Code prior to Grading Permit issuance for final plotting design. e. Based on the sensitivity of the project site and the presence of P-37-012525, archaeological and Native American monitoring shall be required and conducted during all project-related ground disturbance, including but not limited to, grading and excavation for and installation of foundations and utilities. The Applicant shall provide evidence of 564
Attachment "3"
842
Item8.
contract with a tribe culturally and traditionally affiliated with the Project site area to Planning Services staff prior to any ground disturbance.
Within 30 days of the conclusion of all monitoring activities, an archaeological monitoring report shall be prepared by a qualified archaeologist and submitted to the appropriate parties detailing the results of all monitoring activities and any cultural resources identified.
Any discoveries of cultural resources or human remains shall be addressed in accordance with the unanticipated discovery measures outlined below. f. Mitiation Measures
The Project shall comply with all the requirements of the final adopted revised Mitigation D 26-03 and as
summarized below:
Biological Resources
BIO-1 and BIO-2: To address direct impacts to non-native grasslands and coastal sage scrub, the proposed mitigation ratio is 0.25:1 through the purchase of habitat credits from an approved mitigation bank for non-native grassland. For impacts to 0.02 acres of coastal sage scrub, U.S. Fish and Wildlife and California Department of Fish and Game approval would be required. Mitigation measures
BIO-3: Impacts to native Live Oaks trees will be mitigated by relocating the four Live Oaks on-site and planting four new Live Oak trees on-site.
BIO-4: A qualified biologist must inspect trees for nests prior to any brushing, grading, tree relocation or construction within close proximity to, or within the existing Oaks discussed in the Biological Report's addendum of 2/14/07. If any active nests of sensitive species are found, no impacts will be allowed until all young have fledged.
BIO-5: The applicant shall provide funding to the satisfaction of the City for the five-year monitoring of the oak trees with sufficient reserve for the replacement of any dead/dying stock.
Hydrology/Water Quality
HYD-1: No drinking water wells are to be drilled on-site and no excavations shall be allowed on-site without proper permits.
F. Specific Fire Department Conditions:
a. Project is located in the Very High Fire severity zone and shall be constructed in compliance with the California Wildland Urban Interface Code (WUI). 565
Attachment "3"
843
Item8.
b. An approved paved access and adequate water supply shall be provided prior to the start of construction.
c. A minimum hydrant fire flow of 1500 GPM at 20 PSI shall be provided for this Project.
G. Specific Engineering Services Conditions:
1. The Developer shall provide the City Engineer with a Subdivision Guarantee and Preliminary Title Report covering subject property.
2. The location of all existing on-site and adjacent utilities and storm drain facilities shall be improvements, arrangements for relocation of the conflicting utilities/facilities shall be made with the owner of the utility/facility prior to approval of the Grading plans and Final Map. This utility/facility relocation work shall be completed prior to issuance of Building Permits.
3. Improvement plans prepared by a Civil Engineer, required for all public street, utility, and storm drain improvements, and Grading/Private Improvement plans prepared by Civil Engineer, required for all grading, drainage and private onsite improvement design, shall be submitted for rev
Engineering Initial Submittal Checklists. Landscaping Plans shall be prepared by a Landscape Architect.
4. The Developer shall post securities in accordance with the City prepared Bond and Fee Letter project engineer. The Developer is required to provide a Grading Surety Bond together with a Cash Clean-up Deposit for all grading, landscaping, private Improvements and onsite drainage improvements prior to approval of Grading Plans and issuance of Grading Permit. The Cash Clean Up Deposit amount shall be 10% of the total cost of the project grading, private improvements, drainage, and landscaping. The Developer is required to provide Performance (100% of total public improvement cost estimate), Labor and Material (50% of total public improvement cost estimate) and Guarantee and Warrantee (10 % of total public improvement cost estimate) bonds for all public improvements prior to approval of the Improvement Plans and issuance of Building Permits. All improvements shall be completed prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
5. As surety for the construction of required off-site and/or on-site improvements, bonds and agreements in a form acceptable to the City Attorney shall be posted by the Developer with the City of Escondido prior to the approval of any Grading Plan or Building permit.
6. No Building Permits shall be issued for any construction within this Subdivision until the Final Subdivision Map is recorded and either:
a) All conditions of the Tentative Subdivision Map have been fulfilled, or b) Those conditions unfulfilled at the time of an application for Building Permits shall be secured and agreements executed in a form and manner satisfactory to the City Attorney and City Engineer.
566
Attachment "3"
844
Item8.
7. If site conditions change adjacent to the proposed development prior to completion of the project, the Developer will be responsible to modify his/her improvements to accommodate these changes. The determination and extent of the modification shall be to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
8. All public improvements shall be constructed in a manner that does not damage existing public improvements. Any damage shall be determined by and corrected by the Developer to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
9. The Tentative Map certified by the Planning Department that it is an accurate reproduction of the approved Tentative Map together with a copy of the final adopted Conditions of Approval must be included with the first Final Engineering submittal for plan check to the Engineering Department.
STREET IMPROVEMENTS AND TRAFFIC
1. Public street and drainage improvements shall be constructed to City Standards in effect at the time of the Tentative Map approval and shall be submitted on public improvement plans prepared by a Civil Engineer to the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to first occupancy.
Specific details, including final concrete driveway apron design for the project entrances, concrete curb & gutter and sidewalk replacement, drainage, street lighting, etc. shall be resolved to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
2. All structural improvements and overlays to public and private roadways shall adhere to the most recent Caltrans Standard specifications for asphalt concrete (AC), hot mix asphalt (HMA), asphalt binders (AB), and Portland cement concrete (PCC). Materials shall be sourced from a Caltrans-approved facility or supplier(s) based off the respective materials being replaced or improved upon. For AC or HMA replacement, materials shall be sourced from suppliers listed AB replacement, materials shall be Caltransapproved Class 2 Aggregate Base sourced from Caltrans-approved suppliers listed on the Material Plant Quality Program (MPQP) to obtain their respective Plant Certification, and shall
3. Prior to first occupancy the developer shall construct street improvements, including but not limited to, concrete curb, gutter, sidewalk, street lights, street trees, paving and base on the following streets adjoining the project boundary:
STREET CLASSIFICATION
Bernardo Avenue Local Collector
Hamilton Lane Local Collector
Private Street
See appropriate typical sections in the current Escondido Design Standards for additional details.
4. The Developer shall widen Bernardo Avenue to Local Collector Standards along the project west of centerline.
567
Attachment "3"
845
Item8.
5. The Developer shall widen Hamilton Lane to Local Collector Standards along the project frontage with approximately 33 feet of new structural section and grind and overlay beyond that as needed for transitions.
6. The project entrances shall be designed as a street intersection with curb returns, cross gutters, spandrels, and pedestrian ramps.
7. The onsite private street shall be designed and c
-around at its terminus to the
satisfaction of the Fire Marshal. A 4.5-foot-wide concrete sidewalk shall be required along the west side only. Parking will only be allowed on the west side and parking restriction signing and striping will be required along the east side and within the emergency vehicle turn-around area. Typical sections and design details shall be to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The aspects of this private street.
8. The developer shall be required to construct a LED street lights in accordance with Escondido Standard Drawing No. E-1-E on the project corner of the Bernardo Ave. and Hamilton Lane
9. The private street shall be adequately illuminated to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and Fire Marshal. This lighting s
in the CC&Rs.
10. The Developer shall construct a high visibility cross walk across the south leg of Bernardo Avenue at the Bernardo Avenue and Hamilton Lane intersection.
11. engineer shall prepare and submit for approval by the City Engineer a complete final Signing and Striping plan for all improved and modified roadways. The Developer will be responsible for removal of all existing and the construction of all new signing and striping in compliance with the current CA MUTCD standards and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
12. The Developer shall construct additional transitional paving within the existing rights-of-way as needed to accommodate any required lane striping alignment and/or transitions per the above required Signing and Striping plan to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
13. The Developer shall repaint all pavement striping and markings adjacent to the project that have been damaged and prematurely faded due to project construction traffic to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
14. Adequate horizontal sight distance shall be provided at the project entrance. Increased parkway widths, open space easements, and restrictions on landscaping may be required at the discretion of the City Engineer.
15. Pedestrian access routes meeting current ADA requirements shall be provided into the project to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and City Building Official.
16. Any proposed gated entrance shall be privately operated an Association and shall be approved by the City Engineer, Building Official, and the Fire Marshal. 568
Attachment "3"
846
Item8.
17. The Developer will be required to provide a detailed detour and traffic control plan, for all construction and staging activities, and any requested materials placement within existing rights-of-way to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. This plan shall include any proposed sidewalk closures and provide for alternate pedestrian access around the project site. This plan shall be approved prior to the issuance of an Encroachment Permit for construction or other project activities within the public right-of-way.
GRADING and SITE IMPROVEMENTS
1. A site grading and erosion control plan prepared by a registered Civil Engineer shall be approved by the Engineering Department prior to issuance of building permits. The first submittal of the grading plan shall be accompanied by 3 copies of the preliminary soils and geotechnical report. The Soils Engineer will be required to indicate in the soils report that he/she has reviewed the grading design and found it to be in conformance with his/her recommendations.
2. xceeding 15% slope or less than 1.0% shall be paved
with PCC.
3. Any proposed retaining walls not a part of the building foundations or stem walls shall be shown on and permitted as part of the site grading plan. Profiles and structural details shall be shown on the site grading plan and the Soils Engineer shall state on the plans that the proposed retaining wall design is in conformance with the recommendations and specifications as outlined in the Geotechnical report. Structural calculations shall be submitted for review by a Consulting Engineer for all walls not covered by Regional or City Standard Drawings. Stem walls, foundation structures, or deepened footings that are to be constructed as part of a building structure will be permitted as part of the Building Dept. plan review and permit process.
4. The Developer will be required to obtain permission from adjoining property owners for any offsite grading or work necessary to construct the project and/or the required improvements.
5. Erosion control, including riprap, interim slope planting, sandbags, or other erosion control measures shall be provided to control sediment and silt from the project. The Developer shall be responsible for maintaining all erosion control facilities throughout the project.
6. The Developer shall be responsible for the recycling of all excavated materials designated as Industrial Recyclables (soil, asphalt, sand, concrete, land clearing brush and rock) at a recycling center or other location(s) approved by the City Engineer.
7. A Construction General Permit is required from the State Water Resources Control Board for all storm water discharges associated with a construction activity where clearing, grading, and excavation results in a land disturbance of one or more acres.
8. All blasting operations performed in connection with the improvement of the project shall conform to the City of Escondido Blasting Operations Ordinance.
9. the Tentative Map, shall be removed or demolished from the site.
10. Unless specifically permitted to remain by the County Health Department, all existing wells within the project or affected by the off-site improvements shall be abandoned and capped, 569
Attachment "3"
847
Item8.
and all existing septic tanks within the project or affected by the off-site improvements shall be pumped and backfilled per County Health Department requirements.
11. All driveway grades shall conform to current Escondido Design Standards and Escondido Standard Drawings.
DRAINAGE
1. Final on-site and off-site storm drain improvements shall be determined to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and shall be based on a Drainage Study to be prepared by the Engineer of Work. The drainage study shall be in conformance with the City of Escondido Design Standards.
2. -inch
reinforced concrete storm drain system in Bernardo Ave. south of the project near Park Place. curb inlet and extend an 18-inch reinforced concrete
pipe storm drain in Bernardo Ave. to make this connection. Work in the area of this storm drain connection at Park Place will likely require an Encroachment Permit from the County.
3. All on-site storm drains not in public easements are private. The responsibility for maintenance of these private storm drains, the storm water basin and treatment facilities shall be that of the Home Owners Association and clear provisions for this maintenance shall be included in the CC&Rs.
4. The project shall limit drainage flows to their pre-construction rates. Details and calculations for the detention basins shall be submitted and approved as part of the grading plan check.
5. A Storm Water Quality Management Plan (SWQ
adopted Storm Water Design Manual shall be prepared for all newly created or replaced onsite impervious areas, impervious frontage, and required offsite improvements. The SWQMP shall be submitted for approval with the final improvement and grading plans. The SWQMP shall include treatment and hydromodification calculations, post-construction storm water treatment measures, and maintenance requirements and responsibilities both for onsite treatment and -of-way. The SWQMP shall
demonstrate how proposed proprietary best management practices meet bio-filtration
6. All site drainage with emphasis on the parking and driveway areas shall be treated to remove expected contaminants using a high efficiency non-mechanical method of treatment. The City highly encourages the use of bio-retention areas as the primary method of storm water retention and treatment. The landscape plans will need to reflect these areas of storm water treatment.
7. The Developer will be required to have the current owner of the property sign, notarize, and record a Storm Water Control Facility Maintenance Agreement (SWCFMA). This recorded SWCFMA shall be referenced in the CC&Rs.
8. surfaces proposed for the project to the specifications of the County of San Diego Green Streets manual in effect at the time the grading permits are issued. All permeable surfaces within the project footprint that are subject to vehicular traffic shall be designed for H20 loading. 570
Attachment "3"
848
Item8.
9. The property owners shall perpetually maintain any permeable surfaces in accordance to the standards established by the County of San Diego Green Streets manual in effect at the time the grading permits are issued. City shall have the right to inspect all permeable surfaces as needed to ensure they function as designed. City shall have the right to require qualified thirdd. Contractor qualifications are outlined in the County of SD Green Streets manual. The project owner will be required to repair or reinstall the permeable surface for all failing surfaces to County of SD Green Streets manual standards in place at the time of the grading permit. In the event of failure to maintain the permeable pavers system that result in not functioning as designed, the project owner will be responsible to replace the pervious pavers system with an alternate method of storm water treatment system or will be required to transition the project to a priority storm water development project by complying with the applicable requirements, including development of a Storm Water Quality Management Plan and the installation of structural best management practices.
WATER SUPPLY
1. The proposed project is located within the Rincon Del Diablo water service area. The Developer is required to consult with Rincon Del Diablo Water District regarding required water improvements.
2. Fire hydrants together with an adequate water supply shall be installed at locations approved by the Fire Marshal. Fire hydrants shall connect to a minimum 8-inch water main.
SEWER
1. The Developer is required at their sole expense to design and construct an on-site 8-inch public PVC sewer main. The on-site sewer main shall connect to the existing 12-inch sewer main in Bernardo Avenue.
2. No trees or deep-rooted bushes shall be planted within 15-feet of any sewer main or within 10- feet of any sewer lateral. Sewer laterals shall be 5-feet horizontally clear from other utilities.
3. All sewer laterals shall be considered a private sewer system. The property owner shall be responsible for all maintenance of sewer laterals to the public sewer main.
4. Any sewer mains, laterals, and appurtenances shall be designed and constructed per current City of Escondido Design Standards and Standard Drawings, and to the satisfaction of the Utilities Engineer.
5. The project design shall be such that all existing or new sewer manholes are accessible at all times by City Vactor trucks for maintenance.
6. The Developer shall cap and plug at the public sewer main all sewer lines and laterals to be abandoned, to the satisfaction of the Utilities Engineer and the City Inspector.
7. The location of all sewer laterals shall be shown on the grading and improvement plans.
8. All public sewer mains shall be located in the right-of-way or within a minimum 15-foot public utility easement (PUE). Private storm drains, private utilities and permanent structures are not allowed within the PUE.
571
Attachment "3"
849
Item8.
LANDSCAPE
1. A site landscaping and irrigation plan shall be submitted to the Engineering Department with the second submittal of the grading plan for review and approval by Engineering and Planning Departments. The initial submittal of the landscape plans shall include the required plan check fees.
FINAL MAP - EASEMENTS AND DEDICATIONS
1. All existing and proposed easements, both private and public, affecting subject property shall be shown and clearly labeled on the Final Map and all applicable plan sets.
2. The Developer shall make all necessary dedications for public right-offrontages on the following public streets to bring these public roadways to the indicated City Classifications:
STREET CLASSIFICATION
Bernardo Avenue Local Collector
Hamilton Lane Local Collector
3. The Developer shall dedicate on the final map, a 20- northwest corner (SE corner of Hamilton Ln. and Bernardo Ave.)
4. 43-foot-wide
5. 10-foot minimum width private drainage easements covering all private drainage and stormwater basins and facilities shall be proposed on the final map to be granted to the Home
6. A 20-foot minimum width public utility easement across Lots 1 and 2 centered over the proposed public sewer main extension into the project from Bernardo Avenue shall be granted to the City on the final map.
7. A 43-foot-wide public utility easement and emergency access easement overlaying the . 8. The Developer is responsible for making the arrangements to quitclaim any easements of record which conflict with the proposed development prior to approval of the final map. If an easement of record contains an existing utility that must remain in service, proof of arrangements to quitclaim the easement once new utilities are constructed must be submitted to the City Engineer prior to approval of the Final Map. Building permits will not be issued for lots in which construction will conflict with existing easements or utilities, nor will any securities be released until the existing easements are quitclaimed.
REPAYMENTS AND FEES
1. A cash security shall be posted to pay any costs incurred by the City to clean-up eroded soils and debris, repair damage to public or private property and improvements, install new BMPs, and stabilize and/or close-up a non-responsive or abandoned project. Any moneys used by 572
Attachment "3"
850
Item8.
the City for cleanup or damage will be drawn from this security and the grading permit will be revoked by written notice to the Developer until the required cash security is replaced. The cleanup cash security shall be released upon final acceptance of the grading and improvements for this project. The amount of the cash security shall be 10% of the total estimated cost of the grading, drainage, landscaping, and best management practices items of work with a minimum of $5,000 up to a maximum of $50,000, unless a higher amount is deemed necessary by the City Engineer.
2. A Hamilton Lane Storm Drain Repayment in the approximate current** amount of $82,396 ($39,236 per acre) per City Ordinance 91-26 is due to the City of Escondido for reimbursement towards previously constructed drainage improvements that protect this property. ** This Hamilton Storm Drain Repayment Basin fee is subject to an 8% annual increase every July 1 st
. 3. A sewer repayment of $3,823.58 per City Resolution 96-16 is due to the City of Escondido for existing sewer improvements that will serve this development
4. The Developer shall be required to pay all development fees of the City then in effect at the time, and in such amounts as may prevail when building permits are issued.
UTILITY UNDERGROUNDING AND RELOCATION
1. All existing overhead utilities within the subdivision boundary or along fronting streets shall be relocated underground as required by the Subdivision Ordinance. The developer may request a waiver of this condition by writing a letter to the City Engineer explaining his/her reasons for requesting the waiver. The developer will be required to pay a waiver fee as adopted by City Council resolution.
2. The Developer shall sign a written agreement stating that he has made all such arrangements as may be necessary to coordinate and provide utility construction, relocation and undergrounding. All new utilities shall be constructed underground.
1. Department for approval and shall be recorded prior to approval and recording of the Final Map.
2. The Developer shall m
Association of the private street, private storm water and drainage facilities, private street lighting, landscaping both onsite and within fronting public right-of-ways. These provisions must be approved by the Engineering Department prior to approval of the Final Map.
3. sociation
when repair or replacement of private utilities is done.
4. has to trench the street for repair or replacement of an existing utility. 573
Attachment "3"
851
Item8.
574
Attachment "3"
852
Item8.
Attachment "5"
575
Attachment "3"
853
Item8.
Attachment "5"
576
Attachment "3"
854
Item8.
CITY OF ESCONDIDO
PLANNING SERVICES
201 NORTH BROADWAY
ESCONDIDO, CA 92025-2798
760-839-4671
NOTICE OF DETERMINATION
DATE: June 10, 2026
TO: __ Office of Planning Research FROM: City of Escondido State Clearinghouse Street Address: 201 North Broadway
P.O. Box 3044 1400 Tenth St. Rm 113 Escondido, CA 92025 Sacramento, CA 95812-3044 Sacramento, CA 95814 (Lead Agency) __ San Diego County Recorder’s Office
Attn: Fish and Wildlife Notices
1600 Pacific Highway, Room 260
San Diego, CA 92101
MS: A-33
SUBJECT: Filing of Notice of Determination in compliance with Section 21152 of the Public Resources Code.
Hamilton 5-Lot Subdivision - Case No. PL24-0067
Project Title/Case No.
N/A City of Escondido
State Clearinghouse Number (if submitted to State Clearinghouse) Lead Agency Masson & Associates (Robert D’Amaro) 200 E. Washington Street, Escondido, CA 92025 (760)741-3570 Project Applicant, Address and Phone Number
Melissa DiMarzo, Assistant Planner II, City of Escondido 760-839-4531 [email protected] Contact Person Telephone Number Email
Project Location (Include County): The 6.02-acre site is located on the southeast corner of Bernardo Avenue and Hamilton Lane and is addressed at 0 Hamilton Lane, Escondido, CA 92029. (Assessor’s Parcel Number: 238-360-68-00)
Project Description: Denial of an appeal of a Planning Commission decision to approve a Tentative Subdivision Map to subdivide a 6.02-acre parcel into five (5) lots, with a General Plan Designation of Estate I (E1) and a Zoning Designation of Residential Estates (RE-40; 40,000 square-foot minimum lot sizes) (“Project”). The Project includes on-site improvements related to grading and stormwater, and off-site improvements including but not limited to: sidewalk, curb, and cutter, and other standard frontage improvements. The request also includes consideration of the environmental document prepared for the Project. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an Addendum (“First Addendum”) was prepared for the Project, and demonstrates based on substantial evidence that the prior environmental analysis in the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (“IS/MND”) prepared for the adoption of the previous Project, 2005-06-AN, 2005-46-PZ, Tract 931, ER 2005-33 adequately addresses the potential environmental effects of the Project, and supports a finding that the Project would not raise any significant new issues nor exceed the level of impacts idenitifed in the previously adopted IS/MND requiring additional anaylsis under CEQA. Approval of the Project includes preparation of a First Addendum prepared in accordance with section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines. There are no changes or additions that meet Attachment "4"
855
Item8.
PL24-0067
Hamilton 5-Lot Subdivision
June 10, 2026
any of the requirements for preparing a subsequent or supplemental MND per Sections 15162-15163 of the State CEQA Guidelines.
This is to advise that on June 10, 2026, the Escondido City Council (Lead Agency) has denied the appeal of a Planning Commission decision to approve the above described project and adopted a First Addendum to an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (City File No.PL24-0067; Resolution No. 2026-03), and has made the following determinations regarding the proposed project:
1. The project will not have a significant effect on the environment.
2. A First Addendum to the previously adopted IS/MND prepared for the previous project, 2005-06-AN, 2005-46-PZ, Tract 931, ER 2005-33, was prepared, and found that the Project does not trigger the conditions requiring preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent MND under CEQA Guidelines 15162.
3. Mitigation measures were made a condition of approval for this project.
4. Mitigation measures were adopted for this project.
5. A revised mitigation reporting or monitoring plan was adopted for this Project.
6. A Statement of Overriding Considerations was not adopted for this project.
7. Findings identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 were not made pursuant to the provisions of CEQA.
This is to certify that a copy of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (City File No. ER 2005-03 and Ordinance No. 2007-11, Resolution No. 2007-58; Resolution No. 2026-03; Resoultion 2026-90), and record of project approval(s) with any comments and responses are available for review by the general public at the City of Escondido Planning Services, 201 N. Broadway, Escondido, California 92025. Telephone number: 760-839-4671. The City of Escondido has complied with CEQA in preparation of the First Addendum for this Project.
Name of Official Filing Notice: Melissa DiMarzo, Assistant Planner II City of Escondido
Lead Agency
Signature:
Date: June 10, 2026
Date Received for Filing
Filing Fee Transmitted to County Clerk $50.00
Attachment "4"
856
Item8.
INITIAL STUDY ADDENDUM
City of Escondido, California
1. PROJECT TITLE: Hamilton Bernardo Tentative Tract Map Project
2. LEAD AGENCY & ADDRESS: City of Escondido; 201 North Broadway; Escondido, CA 92025
3. CONTACT PERSON & PHONE: Melissa DiMarzo, Assistant Planner II
4. PROJECT LOCATION: The project site is located southeast of the Hamilton Lane/Bernardo Avenue intersection and comprises 6.02 gross acres in the City of Escondido (Assessor Parcel Number 238-360- 68-00).
5. PROJECT SPONSOR & ADDRESS: Hamilton Bernardo LLC
PO Box 1795
La Jolla, CA 92038
Lee Duran
858-699-9311
6. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Estate 1
7. ZONING DESIGNATION: Residential Estate (RE)-40
8. SURROUNDING LAND USES & PROJECT SETTING:
The project site is vacant. An existing single-family residence is located adjacent to and south of Lot 2 and east of the proposed stormwater biofiltration basin in unincorporated San Diego County. Adjacent land to the west is zoned RE-40. Unincorporated San Diego County is located to the north, east and south. Surrounding land use is single-family residential development.
9. SUMMARY OF ORIGINAL PROJECT:
The original project was a Subdivision Map consisting of 5 single-family residential lots on minimum 40,000 square foot lots and associated public infrastructure improvements such as circulation, storm drains, and water and sewer lines. The project would include grading to create the proposed private street and home building sites. No grading exemptions are required. The approximately 6.28-acre site is comprised of one Assessor Parcel Number (238-360-6800) connecting to and fronting on both Bernardo Avenue and Hamilton Lane. The proposed project is located in an area composed of a mix of established residential development, newer housing tracts and some remaining vacant parcels.
The City of Escondido prepared and adopted an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Case Number ER 2005-33, TR 931, 2005-46-PZ, 2005-06 AN. The Initial Study was circulated for public review from March 22, 2007 to April 11, 2007. The Initial Study determined that no significant impacts to the environment would occur with implementation of the proposed annexation and subdivision map. The following mitigation measures were identified and incorporated into the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP).
Air Quality
Impact. The project will potentially impact air quality in the area surrounding the project during construction.
Mitigation. Prior to construction and issuance of grading and building permits, a site-specific analysis shall be prepared to determine equipment and methods necessary to protect adjacent properties.
Attachment "5"
857
Item8.
Initial Study Addendum -2- City of Escondido, California Biological Resources
Impact. The project will have a direct impact on 3.06 acres of non-native grasslands.
Mitigation. The proposed mitigation ratio is 0.25:1 for direct impacts through the purchase of habitat credits from an approved mitigation bank (BIO-1).
Impact. Project will have a direct impact on .02 acres of Coast Sage Scrub. U.S. Fish and Wildlife and California Department of Fish and Game approval required.
Mitigation. The proposed mitigation ratio is 1:1 for direct impacts through the purchase of habitat credits from an approved mitigation bank (BIO-2).
Impact. The project will require the removal of four individual oak trees to develop the residential lots within the subdivision.
Mitigation. Impacts to native Live Oak trees will be mitigated by relocating the four Live Oaks on-site and planting four new Live Oak trees on-site (BIO-3).
Impact. The project will remove four individual oak trees to develop the residential lots within the subdivision.
Mitigation. A qualified biologist must inspect trees for nests prior to any brushing, grading, tree relocation or construction within close proximity to, or within the existing Oaks discussed in the Biological Report's addendum of 2/14/07. If any active nests of sensitive species are found, no impacts will be allowed until all young have fledged (BIO-4).
Impact. Oak trees planted as part of the replacement program must be monitored to ensure viability.
Mitigation. The applicant shall provide funding to the satisfaction of the City for the five-year monitoring of the oak trees with sufficient reserve for the replacement of any dead/dying stock (BIO-5).
Hazardous Materials
Impact. Project is near the Chatham Barrel Yard (a Superfund Cleanup Site). The project site has one County Monitoring well to that is to remain.
Mitigation. Monitoring well MW57 is to remain onsite and be accessible to the Chatham Brothers RP Group for monitoring purposes until officially released. Upon release, it is to be removed per Regional Board and City of Escondido standards. Alternately, if a new replacement well is installed nearby and approved by the Regional Board and Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), existing well MW57 can also then be released and removed per Regional Board and City of Escondido standards.
This well was decommissioned as documented in a letter provided by Chatham Site PRP Group dated May 21, 2009. This mitigation measure has been satisfied.
Hydrology/Water Quality
Impact. Project is near the Chatham Barrel Yard (a Superfund Cleanup Site). The project site has one County Monitoring well that is to remain.
Mitigation. No drinking water wells are to be drilled on-site and no excavations shall be allowed on-site without proper permits (HYD-1).
Attachment "5"
858
Item8.
Initial Study Addendum -3- City of Escondido, California Proposed Project
The project applicant is seeking entitlement approval from the City of Escondido for a Tentative Tract Map subdividing an existing 6.02 gross/5.95 net acre parcel into five single-family residential estate lots and one stormwater detention basin lot. The applicant is requesting the following entitlement approvals:
- PL24-0067
Hamilton Bernardo, LLC, (applicant) submitted a proposal to the City of Escondido for approval of a subdivision to create five single-family estate lots and one lot for the construction of a stormwater biofiltration basin. The proposed single-family residential lots would be a minimum of 40,000 square feet and accommodate one single-family residence with related improvements. Primary access would be from Hamilton Lane with secondary emergency vehicle access (EVA) from Bernardo Avenue. Potable water would be provided by the City of Escondido Water Department. Sewer conveyance and treatment and public services (i.e., fire, police and stormwater) would be provided by the City of Escondido.
School services would be provided by the Escondido Union School District. Grading would require cut/fill of 8,700 cubic yards. Grading spoils would be balanced on-site. Construction would begin in mid2026 and be completed in 2027.
10. OTHER REQUIRED AGENCY APPROVALS:
None required.
11. HAVE CALIFORNIA NATIVE AMERICAN TRIBES TRADITIONALLY & CULTURALLY AFFILIATED
WITH THE PROJECT AREA REQUESTED CONSULTATION PER PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE SECTION 21080.3.1? IF SO, IS THERE A PLAN FOR CONSULTATION THAT INCLUDES, FOR
EXAMPLE, THE DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACTS TO TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES, PROCEDURE REGARDING CONFIDENTIALITY, ETC.?
The proposed project will disturb native soils during site preparation and grading. Approval of the project would incorporate conditions of approval to address potential adverse effects to Cultural Resources and/or Tribal Cultural Resources during construction. The 2007 Initial Study was prepared prior to adoption of AB 52; thus, while tribal cultural resources are addressed herein, no consultation with Native American Tribes per AB52 is required.
12. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION/ADDENDUM:
As stated, the City previously prepared and adopted an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for Case Number ER 2005-33, TR 931, 2005-46-PZ, 2005-06, dated March 21, 2007.. Based on all available information and in light of the entire record, the analysis in this Addendum, and pursuant to Sections 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City has determined the following
1. There are no substantial changes proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous environmental document due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;
2. Substantial changes have not occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous environmental document due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or
3. There is no new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous environmental Attachment "5"
859
Item8.
Initial Study Addendum -4- City of Escondido, California document was certified as complete or was adopted, shows any of the following:
A. The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous Mitigated Negative Declaration;
B. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous Mitigated Negative Declaration;
C. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or D. Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous Mitigated Negative Declaration would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.
Per Section 15164 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines, the lead agency has prepared an addendum to a previously adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration because, while some changes or additions to the previous Mitigated Negative Declaration were necessary, none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred.
Based upon review of the current project, none of the conditions described in Sections 15162 and 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines apply. No changes in circumstances have occurred, and no new information of substantial importance has manifested, which would result in new significant or substantially increased adverse impacts as a result of the project. As stated, pursuant to Section 15164, , this Addendum has been prepared to document minor technical changes or additions to the Project.
4. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The project would not affect any environmental factors resulting in a Potentially Significant Impact or Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigated. A summary of the environmental factors potentially affected by this project, consisting of a Potentially Significant Impact or Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigated, include:
Aesthetics Agriculture & Forestry Resources Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology / Soils Greenhouse Gas Hazards & Hazardous Materials Hydrology / Water Quality Land Use / Planning Mineral Resources Noise
Population / Housing Public Services Recreation
Transportation Tribal Cultural Resources Utilities / Service Systems Mandatory Finding of Significance Greenhouse Gas Emissions Wildfire Energy
DETERMINATION. (To be completed by lead agency) Based on this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described herein have been included in this project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
Attachment "5"
860
Item8.
Initial Study Addendum -5- City of Escondido, California I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. An Addendum is being prepared to address minor changes to the project. Nothing further is required.
Melissa DiMarzo, Assistant Planner II
5. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).
2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.
3. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
4. “Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact.” The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from “Earlier Analyses,” as described in (5) below, may be cross-referenced).
5. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
Melissa DiMarzo
Attachment "5"
861
Item8.
Initial Study Addendum -6- City of Escondido, California
6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
8. This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project’s environmental effects in whatever format is selected.
9. The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance.
Attachment "5"
862
Item8.
Initial Study Addendum -7- City of Escondido, California Potentially Significant Potentially Significant Unless Mit. Less than Significant No Impact
14.1 AESTHETICS. Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic building within a state scenic highway?
c. In nonurbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from a publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
2007 Initial Study
The proposed map is not located on a Ridgeline identified in the Community Open Space/Conservation Element of the General Plan. No Grading exemptions are being requested in conjunction with this tentative map. The highest fill proposed on the site is approximately 10 feet in height, consistent with the maximum height allowed in the City's Grading Ordinance. It is located along one pad area in the far northeastern corner of the project. The deepest proposed cut areas are up to 6 feet deep, with a maximum of 20 feet being allowed in the Grading Ordinance. The largest cuts are located within the north-central portion of the site.
These proposed cuts and fills are at a 2:1 ratio, also consistent with the Grading Ordinance. These proposed slopes are considered minor in nature by the Code and will not block significant views.
Residential projects typically do not directly illuminate or reflect glare upon adjacent properties, therefore no significant light or glare impact would result from the proposed project. Development of the proposed future development will not obstruct scenic views or vistas open to the public since neither the City nor the State designates Hamilton Lane or Bernardo Avenue as a scenic resources.
Proposed Project
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Less than Significant Impact. The project would approve five new single-family estate lots and one lot to accommodate a stormwater bioretention basin. The site is currently vacant and comprised of rolling terrain with several granite boulder clusters. As stated, the site is zoned RE-40 and surrounded by existing singlefamily residential development. New residential lots would be planned and residences constructed consistent with City of Escondido Zoning Code (Chapter 33) Article 6 (Residential Zones), and Article 64 (Design Review).
The General Plan Conservation Element notes that hillsides and ridgelines provide a visual resource and aesthetic value to Escondido that contributes to the community’s sense of identity. These areas are located to the west and east of the site (see Conservation Element, Figure VII-5). The project site does not have any designated scenic features and while the project would change existing views into the site; the site is not a scenic vista. The proposed project would not further obstruct existing public views of hillsides and ridgelines; Attachment "5"
863
Item8.
Initial Study Addendum -8- City of Escondido, California thus, the approved project would not result in adverse effects to scenic resources identified in the General Plan. Impacts would be consistent with those identified in the 2007 Initial Study. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
No Impact. No officially designated state scenic highways exist within City limits. Additionally, the City’s General Plan Resource Conservation Element does not identify any local scenic roadways (City of Escondido 2012). Grading would likely remove or relocate existing vegetation and boulders; however, no impact within a state scenic highway corridor would occur. Impacts would be consistent with those identified in the 2007 Initial Study.
c) In nonurbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from a publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
Less-Than-Significant Impact. Scenic quality is governed by the City’s Zoning Code and General Plan. As discussed under response (a), the proposed project would not result in an adverse effect to a scenic vista as defined in the City’s General Plan. As indicated above, the project site does not have any designated scenic features and while the project would change existing views into the site; the site is not a scenic vista. The proposed project would not further obstruct existing public views of hillsides and ridgelines; thus, the approved project would not result in adverse effects to scenic resources identified in the General Plan. Impacts would be less than significant. The project is within an urbanized area and it would not conflict with applicable RE-40 zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. Impacts would be consistent with those identified in the 2007 Initial Study.
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Less-Than-Significant Impact. There are two primary artificial sources of light that generally affect an urban environment: light emanating from building interiors that passes through windows to the outside and light from exterior sources (e.g., street lighting, parking lot lighting, building illumination, security lighting, and landscape lighting) that affect the natural ambient light level. The introduction of light can affect adjacent areas and diminish night sky views depending on the location of the light sources and proximity to nearby light-sensitive areas.
Glare can be caused by unshielded or misdirected lighting sources. Reflective surfaces such as chrome or polished metal can also be a source of glare. Glare results from development and associated parking areas that contain reflective materials such as hi-efficiency window glass, highly polished surfaces and expanses of pavement. The Project site is in a developed area with predominantly single-family uses. The existing lighting in the project area includes streetlights and vehicle lights within the adjacent roadway corridors and interior and exterior building lighting from developed parcels proximal to the site.
Proposed lighting is anticipated to include a combination of street and security lighting. City of Escondido Zoning Code Article 35 addresses the use of light fixtures on residential properties to minimize the amount of light cast on adjoining properties and public right-of-way. During construction, lights may be used within the construction areas, notably the construction staging areas, to provide security for construction equipment and construction materials. Further, in the event that construction-related activities occur during nighttime hours, temporary, overhead artificial lighting would be provided to illuminate the work area. Compliance with applicable lighting regulations and standards would reduce potential impacts to less than significant. Impacts would be consistent with those identified in the 2007 Initial Study.
Attachment "5"
864
Item8.
Initial Study Addendum -9- City of Escondido, California Based on the foregoing analysis and information, there is no evidence that the project would require a major change to the 2007 Initial Study. The project would not result in any new significant impact, nor would a substantial increase in the severity of impacts from that described in the 2007 Initial Study result. Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mit. Less than Significant Impact No Impact
14.2 AGRICULTURE & FORESTRY RESOURCES. In determining
whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project:
a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance as depicted on maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency?
b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act Contract?
c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))?
d. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to nonforest use? e. Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to nonagricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? 2007 Initial Study
The project site is not in agricultural production and is not listed as Prime Agricultural Land as identified in the General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report, which was prepared for the City's most recent General Plan revisions in 2012.
The California Department of Conservation, which publishes farmland conservation reports, classifies the site as "Urban and Built-up Land" which is defined as:
" ... land occupied by structures with a building density of at least one unit to 1.5 acres, or approximately six structures to a 10-acre parcel, including residential, industrial, commercial, institutional facilities, cemeteries, airports, golf courses, sanitary landfills, sewage treatment, and water control structures.
Attachment "5"
865
Item8.
Initial Study Addendum -10- City of Escondido, California The development of residential lots and natural vegetated lands to remain; would therefore, not result in significant individual or cumulative impacts to agricultural resources.
Proposed Project
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
No Impact. The site is not designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance. Construction of the proposed project would not convert farmland to non-agricultural use Impacts would be consistent with those identified in the 2007 Initial Study. b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? No Impact. The proposed project is located in an area zoned to accommodate the existing use. Agricultural designations do not occur within the project area and no Williamson Act contracts apply. Therefore, implementation of the project would not result in any conflicts with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act Contract. No impact would occur. Impacts would be consistent with those identified in the 2007 Initial Study.
No Impact. The project site is neither zoned for agricultural use, nor subject to a Williamson Act contract.
Approval of the proposed project would have no impact on existing agricultural zoning or to land under a Williamson Act contract. No impact would occur. Impacts would be consistent with those identified in the 2007 Initial Study.
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? No Impact. The project site is not zoned as forest land or timberland or for Timberland Production nor do these uses occur on the site. No impact would occur. Impacts would be consistent with those identified in the 2007 Initial Study.
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? No Impact. The project site does not contain forested areas or designated forest land. The proposed project would not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use. No impact would occur. Impacts would be consistent with those identified in the 2007 Initial Study. e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? No Impact. The project site is not located on a site dedicated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in changes in the environment that would result in the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use. No impact would occur.
Impacts would be consistent with those identified in the 2007 Initial Study.
Based on the foregoing analysis and information, there is no evidence that the project would require a major change to the 2007 Initial Study. The project would not result in any new significant impact, nor would a substantial increase in the severity of impacts from that described in the 2007 Initial Study result. .
Attachment "5"
866
Item8.
Initial Study Addendum -11- City of Escondido, California Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mit. Less than Significant Impact No Impact
14.3 AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significant criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determination. Would the project:
a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
b. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? c. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? d. Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
2007 Initial Study
The project area is within the San Diego Air Basin (SDAB). Air quality at a particular location is a function of the kinds and amounts of pollutants being emitted into the air locally, and throughout the basin, and the dispersal rates of pollutants within the region. The major factors affecting pollutant dispersion are wind, speed and direction, the vertical dispersion of pollutants (which is affected by inversions) and the local topography.
The air basin currently is designated a state and federal non-attainment area for ozone and particulate matter.
However, in the SDAB, part of the ozone contamination is derived from the Los Angeles area South Coast Air Basin during periods of westerly winds (Santa Ana condition) when air pollutants are windborne over the ocean, drift to the south and eventually are blown easterly into the SDAB. Local agencies can control neither the source nor transportation of pollutants from outside the basin. The Air Pollution Control District (APCD) policy; therefore, has been to control local sources effectively enough to reduce locally produced contamination.
For long-term emissions, the direct impacts of a project can be measured by the project's consistency with regional plans to improve and maintain air quality. Local air-quality impacts are directly related to the number of vehicle trips and operation levels on adjacent streets and intersections. For planning purposes, the APCD assumed the City's General Plan designation of Estate I in calculating air quality impacts. According to CEQA Guidelines, a project normally is considered to have a significant air quality impact if it violates any ambient air quality standard, contributes substantially to an existing or projected air-quality violation, or exposes sensitive receptors to substantial pollution concentrations.
Emissions resulting from developing the site would be directly related to the amount of vehicular traffic generated by the project. The increase of 5 units would have an incremental impact to basin-wide air quality.
Considering the cumulative impacts of thousands of sources, the impact attributed to the project is immeasurably small on a regional scale and will not cause ambient air-quality standards to be exceeded.
Since development would not materially degrade the levels of service on adjacent streets and intersections, and would not violate daily emissions thresholds, the project will not have a significant impact on air quality and no mitigation measures are required.
Construction-Related Emissions
Construction-related activities are temporary, short-term sources of air emissions. Sources of constructionrelated air emission include:
Attachment "5"
867
Item8.
Initial Study Addendum -12- City of Escondido, California • Fugitive dust from grading activities;
• Construction equipment exhaust;
• Construction-related trips by worker, delivery trucks and material-hauling trucks; and • Construction-related power consumption.
Maximum daily emissions of NOx during construction periods are not projected to exceed City thresholds or APCD standards based on similar studies performed for similar size grading operations. Since construction is a one-time temporary activity, and because average daily construction emissions are projected to be below thresholds of significance, operation of equipment during project construction is not anticipated to result in substantial air quality impacts. Dust from grading and other site preparation would generate particulate matter emission; however, with appropriate use of grading and operation procedures as described in the attached mitigation measures (in conformance with APCD Best Management Practice for dust control), the project would not generate significant particulate matter or dust.
The City of Escondido Grading Ordinance and erosion control requirements include provisions for dust control to reduce impacts to air quality during grading and construction activities. At a minimum, these ordinances and provisions require projects to perform regular watering and timely re-vegetation of disturbed areas to minimize the dust and airborne nuisance impacts to off-site receptors. Emissions from construction equipment, worker and delivery and material-hauling trucks, and construction-related power consumption would be temporary and would result in an extremely small contribution to the SDAB; and therefore, would not result in a significant impact.
As stated above, mitigation for air quality required preparation of a site-specific analysis and report to determine equipment and methods necessary to protect adjacent properties from adverse air quality impacts which may result from construction. A site-specific analysis was prepared and is summarized below; thus, satisfying this mitigation measure.
Proposed Project
Information within this section was obtained in part from the California Emission Estimator Model version 2022.1. The output file is provided as Appendix A.
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? No Impact. The project site is zoned RE-40 which supports low density single-family residential development.
SANDAG’s Regional Plan population, employee population and housing estimates for the years 2020 and 2035 was compared to the estimated increase in population, employees, and housing generated by the proposed project. The number of housing units in the City was projected to be 54,910 in 2025 and 58,990 in 2035, or an increase in 4,080 housing units. Furthermore, the City’s population was projected to be 165,127 residents in 2025 and 169,122 residents in 2035, or an increase of 3,995 residents over the period. The average household size is 2.8 people per dwelling unit, which translates into approximately 14 residents for the proposed project. Therefore, the project would be within SANDAG’s population growth forecast and, as addressed below, the proposed project emissions would not conflict with the State Implementation Plan (SIP), AQMP and RAQS. Therefore, as the Final IS/MND disclosed regarding the approved project, the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. Impacts would be consistent with those identified in the 2007 Initial Study. b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? Less than Significant Impact. The thresholds listed in Table 1 are screening-level thresholds used to evaluate whether proposed-project-related emissions could cause a significant impact on air quality.
Emissions below the screening-level thresholds would not cause a significant impact. The emissions-based thresholds for ozone precursors (ROG and NOx) are intended to serve as the threshold for ozone. This Attachment "5"
868
Item8.
Initial Study Addendum -13- City of Escondido, California approach is used because ozone is not emitted directly; thus, ozone concentrations associated with individual projects precursors (VOC and NOx) emissions cannot be determined through air quality models or other quantitative methods. For nonattainment pollutants, if emissions exceed the thresholds shown in Table 1, the project has the potential to result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in these pollutants; and thus, could have a significant impact on the ambient air quality. Impacts would be consistent with those identified in the 2007 Initial Study.
Table 1
SDAPCD Air Emission Significance Thresholds
Construction Emissions
Pollutant Total Emissions (pounds per day)
Reactive Organic Gas (ROG) 75
Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) 250
Carbon Monoxide (CO) 550
Sulfur Oxides (SOx) 250
Respirable Particulate Matter (PM10) 100
Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) 55
Operational Emissions
Total Emissions
Pounds per Hour Pounds per Day Tons per Year
Reactive Organic Gas (ROG) -- 75 13.7
Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) 25 250 40
Carbon Monoxide (CO) 100 550 100
Sulfur Oxides (SOx) 25 250 40
Respirable Particulate Matter (PM10) -- 100 15
Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) -- 55 10
Lead and Lead Compounds -- 3.2 0.6
The estimated maximum daily construction and operating emissions are summarized in Table 2 below. As shown, the Project construction-source emissions and operating emissions would not exceed San Diego Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD) regional thresholds for daily emission. Thus, a less than significant impact will occur and no mitigation measures are required. Impacts would be consistent with those identified in the 2007 Initial Study.
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less than Significant Impact. Sensitive populations (i.e., children, senior citizens and acutely or chronically ill people) are more susceptible to the effects of air pollution than are the general population. Land uses considered sensitive receptors typically include residences, schools, playgrounds, childcare centers, hospitals, convalescent homes, and retirement homes. Sensitive receivers include the single-family residences located adjacent to and proximal to the site. In evaluating impacts to sensitive receptors, the two primary emissions of concern are diesel particulate matter and CO. The proposed project would generate approximately 50 daily trips (i.e., 10 trips per unit) and five trips during the peak hour. Per the City of Escondido Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines (April 2021), projects that generate less than 200 daily trips may be presumed to have a less-than significant impact absent substantial evidence to the contrary. The project is not expected to cause a traffic impact or otherwise impede circulation within the project area and at proximal intersections.
Consequently, sensitive receptors would not be significantly affected by CO emissions generated by Projectrelated traffic.
Toxic Air Contaminants. The proposed project would be constructed within an RE-40 zone and require a common mix of equipment. As shown, construction emissions would not violate SDAPCD daily construction emission standards. With respect to operation, the proposed project would not include uses that cause or contribute to TAC emissions. Construction and operation of the proposed project would not Attachment "5"
869
Item8.
Initial Study Addendum -14- City of Escondido, California Table 2
Maximum Daily Construction and Operational Emissions
Project Emissions
Maximum Emissions (lbs/day)
ROG NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
Construction – 2026 6.2 12.9 15.0 0.02 3.4 1.8
SDAPCD Screening
Thresholds 75 250 550 250 100 55
Threshold Exceeded No No No No No No
Operating Emission –
Proposed Project 0.04 0.12 1.8 0.003 0.3 0.08
SDAPCD Screening
Thresholds 75 250 550 250 100 55
Threshold Exceeded No No No No No No
Source: Birdseye Planning Group, LLC., (March 2025) (Appendix A). expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Impacts would be consistent with those identified in the 2007 Initial Study.
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project does not contain land uses typically associated with emitting objectionable odors. Potential odor sources associated with the proposed Project may result from construction equipment exhaust and the application of asphalt and architectural coatings during construction activities and the temporary storage of typical solid waste (refuse) associated with the proposed Project’s (long-term operational) uses. Standard construction requirements would minimize odor impacts from construction. The construction odor emissions would be temporary, short-term, and intermittent in nature and would cease upon completion of the respective phase of construction; and thus, is considered less than significant. It is expected that Project-generated refuse would be stored in covered containers and removed at regular intervals in compliance with the solid waste regulations. Therefore, odors associated with the proposed Project construction and operations would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. The 2007 Initial Study does not specifically address odors; however, as described herein, impacts would be less than significant.
Based on the foregoing analysis and information, there is no evidence that the project would require a major change to the 2007 Initial Study. The project would not result in any new significant impact, nor would a substantial increase in the severity of impacts from that described in the 2007 Initial Study result. Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mit. Less than Significant Impact No Impact
14.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
Attachment "5"
870
Item8.
Initial Study Addendum -15- City of Escondido, California Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mit. Less than Significant Impact No Impact a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or the USFWS?
b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game (DFG) or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
c. Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy/ordinance? f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
Information provided in this section was in part, obtained from the Biological Resources Memorandum prepared by Tierra Data, Inc., July, 2024.(Appendix B). 2007 Initial Study
A series of biological reports dated 6/19/06, 11/20/06, and 2/14/07 were prepared by the Chambers Group to augment the Biological Resource Assessment conducted in 1991 for the subject property. Taken in combination, the reports conclude that the 6.28-acre parcel is composed mostly of non-native grassland with a few oaks in the southeastern portion of the site and a small isolated patch of coastal sage scrub along a fence line adjacent to Hamilton Lane. Based on information detailed in Appendix B, there are currently no sensitive wildlife species present on the site. The biological resource reports concluded that development of the site under the 2007 proposal would necessitate the removal of 3.06 acres of non-native grassland, four oak trees and .02 acres of coastal sage scrub. Proposed mitigation would bring the impacts to biological resources to less than significant.
a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or the USFWS? Less than Significant. The parcel is primarily Disturbed Habitat (DH) composed of annual non-native grasses and non-native vegetation, reflecting the history of agricultural use and repeated mowing for weed abatement.
Due to the significant disturbance and a shift from the original vegetation composition, resilient and fastgrowing non-native species and grasses now outcompete the native flora including several brome grasses (Bromus madritensis ssp. rubens, B. hordeaceus and B. diandrus) and slender wild oat (Avena barbata), as well as non-native forbs, such as mustards (Hirshfeldia incana and Brassica nigra), and filarees (Erodium brachycarpum, E. cicutarium, and E. moschatum).
Attachment "5"
871
Item8.
Initial Study Addendum -16- City of Escondido, California Despite the dominance of non-native species, the parcel supports some native species, predominantly annual forbs such as Menzies' Fiddleneck (Amsinckia menziesii), Narrow Leaf Bedstraw (Galium angustifolium) and a few diminutive perennial species including Coast Buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum), and Broom Baccharis (Baccharis sarothroides) which have clearly been mowed annually. Additionally, several large piles of mulch have been placed on the property, with some already spread. These piles consist primarily of Mexican fan palm (Washingtonia robusta) material, laden with seeds that are now sprouting abundantly.
Animals observed included species of native and non-native Argentine ants (Linepithema humile), Great Basin fence lizards (Sceloporus occidentalis) on the rocks, a dead gopher snake (Pituophis catenifer catenifer), evidence of Coyote (Canis latrans), Botta’s pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae), and a woodrat nest (Neotoma sp.), and common birds including mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), house finch (house finch), California towhee (Melozone crissalis), and northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos). Larger birds were using the offsite trees in the vicinity, including California scrub jay (Aphelocoma californica), hooded oriole (Icterus cucullatus), acorn woodpecker (Melanerpes formicivorus), and American crows (Corvus brachyrhynchos). A red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicansis) was seen flying overhead in the area.
No special status plants or animals were observed at the time of the survey nor is the on-site habitat expected to support sensitive species.
As stated in the 2007 Initial Study, the project would require mitigation for direct impacts to 3.06 acres of nonnative grassland and .02 acres of coastal sage scrub. Neither of these habitat types remain on the project site under current conditions. The property was cleared as requested in weed abatement orders issued by the City of Escondido on May 26, 2021, and August 12, 2025 (see Appendix C). Thus, impacts associated with the proposed project would be less than significant and less than what was identified in the 2007 Initial Study. However, mitigation measures addressing impacts to these habitat types in the 2007 Initial Study and listed above in Section 9, Summary of Original Project, remain applicable and would require implementation with approval of the proposed Project.
b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game (DFG) or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
No Impact. The site is vacant and does not contain any federal or State jurisdictional areas. The proposed project would have no substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wild Service. The project site is void of riparian corridors and sensitive habitat. Thus, no impacts to riparian habitat or sensitive natural communities would occur. Impacts would be consistent with those identified in the 2007 Initial Study.
c. Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? No Impact. No wetlands, as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, exist on-site or immediately adjoining the site. Thus, the project would not result in impacts to wetlands. Impacts would be consistent with those identified in the 2007 Initial Study.
d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
No Impact. The project site is disturbed and located within an urban area. Project implementation would not interfere with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species, with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites, as none exist within the immediate project area. No impacts to migratory corridors or native wildlife nursery sites would occur.
Impacts would be consistent with those identified in the 2007 Initial Study. e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as tree preservation Attachment "5"
872
Item8.
Initial Study Addendum -17- City of Escondido, California policy/ordinance?
Less than Significant Impact. The Escondido Municipal Code regulates removal of trees identified as Mature or Heritage (i.e., Protected), trees (Sec 33-1069). Mature and Protected trees are defined in the Escondido Municipal Code Sec 33-1052 as:
Mature tree is any self-supporting woody perennial plant, native or ornamental, with a single welldefined stem or multiple stems supporting a crown of branches. The single stem, or one of the multiple stems of any mature oak tree (genus Quercus), shall have a diameter 4 inches or greater when measured at 4½ feet diameter at breast height (DBH) above the tree’s natural grade. All other mature trees shall have a diameter of 8 inches DBH, or greater, for a single stem or one of the multiple stems.
Protected tree is any oak (genus Quercus) which has a 10-inch or greater DBH, or any other species or individual specimen listed on the local historic register, or determined to substantially contribute to the historic character of a property or structure listed on the local historic register, pursuant to Article 40 of the Escondido Zoning Code.
A total of 17 mature and protected trees are located on-site. Most of the trees on site are in the southern portion of the site. Two trees are in the west and center of the site, one a small black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia) and the other, a Heritage coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia). The southern portion of the site contains six Heritage coast live oak trees, three mature coast live oak trees and three mature non-native trees. The remaining four trees do not meet the Protected tree criteria.
Several Mature and Heritage Trees are located on Lots 2, 4, and 5. The proposed project could potentially remove two Heritage coast live oak trees located within the pad of Lot 4 while avoiding all other oak trees. A coast live oak tree on the boundary of Lots 4 and 5 would be avoided. Two additional Mature olive trees would also be removed by grading Lot 5. Lastly, a black locust tree meets neither Heritage nor Mature tree criterion, would be removed to create the retention basin. All the impacted Heritage or Mature trees are far from the three roads that border the parcel and the loss of four trees would not significantly change views for area residents or the aesthetics of the area. It is expected that future homeowners will plant trees around their homes that will offset any aesthetic impacts from removal of the four trees. While multiple trees would be removed, the Project would be in compliance with City’s current Municipal Code requirements for trees.
As stated in the 2007 Initial Study, the proposed project would require removal of four Live Oak trees; thus, requiring on-site relocation or replacement of the four existing Live Oak trees and planting of four additional Live Oak trees. The current project as proposed would be consistent with the City’s Municipal Code requirements for removal of heritage and mature trees. However, removal of any Live Oak tree would require replacement of that tree plus planting of one additional live oak tree as stated in the 2007 Initial Study mitigation measures for biological resources. Impacts would be similar to what was identified for the project as proposed in 2007.
Based on the foregoing analysis and information, there is no evidence that the project would require a major change to the 2007 Initial Study. The project would not result in any new significant impact, nor would a substantial increase in the severity of impacts from that described in the 2007 Initial Study result. f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? No Impact. The City is no longer participating in the local regional Natural Community Conservation Planning (NCCP) effort and the site was not in a Focused Planning Area of the Multiple Habitat Conservation Plan (MHCP). Thus, the proposed Project would neither impact regional conservation planning efforts under the NCCP or MHCP, and because of its location and features, development would not impact any future regional conservation planning efforts. Impacts would be consistent with those identified in the 2007 Initial Study.
Attachment "5"
873
Item8.
Initial Study Addendum -18- City of Escondido, California Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mit. Less than Significant Impact No Impact
14.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5 of CEQA?
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5 of CEQA? c. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries?
2007 Initial Study
The undeveloped site currently has only some minor indications that farming and citrus grove activity took place on the property in the past. The hilltop and surrounded land is now vacant. The property does not appear on the list of Archaeological Resources Sites; therefore, it is assumed the proposed development would have less than significant impacts on cultural resources.
Proposed Project
Information provided in this section was in part, obtained from the Phase I Cultural Resources Report prepared by South Environmental, LLC, May 2025 (Appendix D). a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5 of CEQA?
No Impact. On March 27, 2025, South Environmental performed an in-person cultural resources records search of the project site and a 0.5-mile search radius at the South Coastal Information Center (SCIC), which houses cultural resources records for San Diego County. This search included their collections of mapped prehistoric and historic archaeological resources and historic built-environment resources, State of California Department of Parks and Recreation Series 523 forms (DPR forms), technical reports, archival resources, and ethnographic references. Additional consulted sources include historical maps of the study area, the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), the California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR), the lists of California State Historical Landmarks, California Points of Historical Interest, and the Archaeological Resource Directory and Historic Built Environment Resource Directory lists. The SCIC records search identified three cultural resources studies (SD-8588, -8596, and -10211) that were conducted within the project site and an additional 42 studies within a 0.5-mile radius. None identified any historic resources on-site that are listed or eligible for listing on the NRHP or CRHR. Further, no historic resources were identified. No impact to historic resources would occur. Impacts would be consistent with those identified in the 2007 Initial Study. b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to 15064.5 of CEQA?
Less than Significant with Mitigation. As stated above, The SCIC records search identified three cultural resources studies (SD-8588, -8596, and -10211) that were conducted within the project site and an additional 42 studies within a 0.5-mile radius. These are summarized as follows:
SD-08588. The Draft Environmental Impact Report for Expansion of Wastewater Treatment Facility was completed by the City of Escondido in 1980. This Environmental Impact Report (EIR) included a cultural resources inventory that identified an archaeological site within the treatment plant site to be avoided by its Attachment "5"
874
Item8.
Initial Study Addendum -19- City of Escondido, California expansion. The study included a records search but no pedestrian survey. Adherence to State and Regional Historic Preservation regulations was recommended to mitigate impacts to cultural resources. However, the identified archaeological site is nowhere near the current project site, located west of Interstate 15 and south of State Route 78. The EIR’s broad study area included the current project site but did not include archaeological surveys within or near the project site.
SD-08596. The Results of a Cultural Resource Survey of the Escondido Reclaimed Water Distribution System Project: Draft Environmental Impact Report was prepared by Brian F. Smith and Associates in 1992. This study inventoried cultural resources within and adjacent to the 24.2-mile project alignment. A record search found 115 prehistoric sites and two historic sites near the project alignment, but no cultural resources were discovered within the study’s project boundaries. The entire project alignment was surveyed. Where terrain permitted, the project alignment was intensively surveyed with 20-foot linear transects, and areas with steep grades, heavy foliage, structures, or pavement that inhibited access or ground visibility were surveyed at a reconnaissance level. This approach resulted in approximately 25 percent of the project alignment being intensively surveyed. The eastern half of the current project site falls with the 100-foot buffer zone of the Smith 1992 project alignment; however, no details are provided that indicate the current project site was intensively surveyed. Archaeological monitoring was recommended for certain areas deemed sensitive but not the entirety of the project alignment. Standard mitigation measures were also recommended.
SD-010211. The Results of Archaeological Testing at CA-SDI-12525 Report was prepared by Susan Underbrink of Chambers Group, Inc. in 2006. This multicomponent resource was originally recorded by Del James, Steven Briggs, and Scott Campbell of ERC Environmental and Energy Services in 1991. The prehistoric component was initially described as possessing “numerous slicks on 17 different granite bedrock outcrops,” more than 20 chipped stone flakes, two manos, one metate fragment, and more than 50 marine shell fragments. An L-shaped concrete foundation and a subterranean concrete foundation was also referenced. It was stated that the area around the bedrock outcrops had been subject to disking but also estimated that the subsurface appeared to retain good integrity.
Susan Underbrink (2006) of Chambers Group, Inc. conducted resurvey and archaeological testing of P-37- 012535 for CRHR eligibility evaluation in May 2006. Underbrink recorded 20 bedrock milling features (labeled as Features A-T) with 27 milling surfaces, all flush or shallow slicks. Underbrink noted that many of the milling surfaces were heavily eroded and that some of the features identified in 1991 could not be relocated.
Underbrink excavated 16 shovel test pits and two 1-meter by 1-meter test units to a maximum depth of 70 centimeters. From the excavations she collected nine metavolcanic chipped stone flakes or shatter, one quartz flake, three small marine shell fragments of unidentified genus or species, one burnt large mammal bone, and one metal plate that states, “American Automobile Owners Association.” Test Unit 1 produced 10 of the 15 artifacts and ecofacts between 0-30 centimeters of depth. No artifacts from the surface were recorded or collected. Underbrink described the site as a food processing site with a paucity of subsurface cultural material lacking diagnostic artifacts or evidence of habitation. The report (Underbrink 2006) stated that the research potential of P-37-012535 has been exhausted and the site was recommended not eligible for the CRHR” and no further work is necessary beyond archaeological monitoring.
Native American Scoping
A Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) Sacred Lands File search was requested by South Environmental on March 21, 2025. The NAHC responded to the request on April 4, 2025, and reported positive result and recommended contacting the San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians. The NAHC also recommended contacting 31 Native American tribal representatives for additional information or knowledge they may have regarding the presence of cultural resources that may be impacted by the proposed project.
South Environmental sent letters to each contact provided by the NAHC on April 7, 2025, and sent follow-up emails on April 17, 2025, to non-responsive contacts.
Four tribal contacts have responded to the outreach letters to date. The Pala Band of Mission Indians and Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians stated that the area is archaeologically sensitive with known sites recorded Attachment "5"
875
Item8.
Initial Study Addendum -20- City of Escondido, California within the vicinity. These tribes, along with the San Pasqual Band of Diegueño Mission Indians expressed concern about potential impacts the project may have on local tangible cultural heritage and declared interest in entering formal government-to-government consultation.
Field Survey Results
On April 22, 2025, South Environmental conducted an intensive-level survey of the project site. The site was surveyed using transects spaced approximately ten meters apart throughout the site. Areas with exposed ground surface were examined for the presence of prehistoric artifacts (e.g., flaked stone tools, tool-making debris, stone milling tools), historical artifacts (e.g., metal, glass, ceramics), sediment discolorations that might indicate the presence of a cultural midden, depressions, and other features that might indicate the former presence of structures or buildings (e.g., post holes, foundations).
The previously recorded multicomponent archaeological site P-37-012525 (CA-SDI-12525/H) referenced above was relocated and one medium-grained metavolcanic flake was observed within the archaeological site. Some of the previously recorded bedrock milling slicks were relocated; however, others appeared to have eroded through weathering since the 2006 recordation and testing. No artifacts or other evidence was identified to change the previous characterization of site P-37-012525. No additional archaeological or historic built environment resources were observed during the survey beyond the previously recorded and tested P37-012525. Based on these findings, no further archaeological testing of P-37-012525 is recommended.
Further, the current findings are consistent with the previous recommendation that the site lacks significant data potential and is not eligible for CRHR listing.
No Cultural Resources were identified within the project site through Native American scoping; however, the Native American scoping identified the project vicinity as highly sensitive for prehistoric/Native American resources as referenced above. This sensitivity is supported by the five previously recorded resources with prehistoric components within 0.5-mile of the project site, including the CRHR/NRHP-listed multicomponent site P-37-000570 within Felicita Park, which contains a large prehistoric habitation component.
Given the presence of a previously recorded archaeological site within the project site and evidence of archaeological sensitivity indicated by the records search results and responses from tribal contacts, archaeological and Native American monitoring of all project-related earth disturbing activities is recommended as a condition of approval for addressing any discoveries of cultural resources. With implementation of Condition of Approval (COA) CUL-1, impacts to cultural resources would be less than significant.
CUL-1. Archaeological and Native American Monitoring. Based on the sensitivity of the project site and the presence of P-37-012525, archaeological and Native American monitoring should be considered at the City’s discretion and conducted during all project-related ground disturbance, including but not limited to, grading and excavation for and installation of foundations and utilities.
Within 30 days of the conclusion of all monitoring activities, an archaeological monitoring report shall be prepared by a qualified archaeologist and submitted to the appropriate parties detailing the results of all monitoring activities and any cultural resources identified. Any discoveries of cultural resources or human remains shall be addressed in accordance with the unanticipated discovery measures outlined below.
As stated in the 2007 Initial Study, the proposed project was not expected to have any adverse impact to cultural or historic resources. Based on the current Phase I Cultural Resources Report, there is evidence that resources may occur on-site; and per existing protocol, monitoring during construction is recommended at the City’s discretion as a Condition of Approval. Implementation of this Condition of Approval does not represent a substantial change proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous environmental document due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects that would necessitate revisions to the 2007 Initial Study.
Attachment "5"
876
Item8.
Initial Study Addendum -21- City of Escondido, California c. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Less than Significant. There are no known grave sites within the project limits. Therefore, the disturbance of human remains is not anticipated. However, in the unlikely event that human remains are encountered, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The County Coroner must be notified of any human remains find immediately. If the remains are determined to be prehistoric, the Coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) which will determine and notify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD). With the permission of the landowner or his/her authorized representative, the MLD may inspect the site of the discovery, and shall complete the inspection within 24 of notification by the NAHC. The MLD will have the opportunity to make recommendations to the NAHC on the disposition of the remains. With implementation of existing regulations, potential impacts associated with the disturbance of human remains would be less than significant. This issue was not discussed in the 2007 Initial Study; however, compliance with State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, does not represent a substantial change proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the 2007 Initial Study.
Based on the foregoing analysis and information, there is no evidence that the project would require a major change to the 2007 Initial Study. The project would not result in any new significant impact, nor would a substantial increase in the severity of impacts from that described in the 2007 Initial Study result. Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mit. Less than Significant Impact No Impact
14.6 Energy. Would the project:
a. Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during the project construction or operation?
b. Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
2007 Initial Study
An evaluation of energy impacts was not required under Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines when the 2007 Initial Study was prepared.
a. Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during the project construction or operation? Less than Significant Impact. During construction, the Project would temporarily consume energy for the operation of construction equipment and vehicles. Standard methods of earth moving, excavations, building construction, and paving are planned. The proposed construction activities do not include methods of construction which would result in inefficient or unnecessary use of energy resources. For operational energy use, the project would be required to meet CCR Title 24 building energy and California Green Building (CALGreen) Code standards. Energy-efficient buildings require less electricity, natural gas, and other fuels.
Electricity production from fossil fuels and on-site fuel combustion (typically for space or water heating) results in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The Title 24 standards are updated approximately every three years to allow consideration and possible incorporation of new energy efficiency technologies and methods.
The 2022 Title 24 standards went into effect on January 1, 2023. The standards are divided into three basic sets. First, there is a basic set of mandatory requirements that apply to all buildings. Second, there is a set of Attachment "5"
877
Item8.
Initial Study Addendum -22- City of Escondido, California performance standards—the energy budgets—that vary by climate zone (of which there are 16 in California) and building type; thus, the standards are tailored to local conditions. Finally, the third set constitutes an alternative to the performance standards, which is a set of prescriptive packages that are basically a recipe or a checklist compliance approach.
CALGreen (CCR Title 24, Part 11) is a code with mandatory requirements for all residential and nonresidential buildings (including industrial and commercial buildings) for which no other state agency has authority to adopt green building standards. The current 2022 Standards for new construction of, and additions and alterations to, residential and nonresidential buildings went into effect on January 1, 2023. CALGreen is intended to (1) reduce GHG emissions from buildings; (2) promote environmentally responsible, cost-effective, healthier places to live and work; (3) reduce energy and water consumption; and (4) respond to the directives by the Governor. In short, the code is established to reduce construction waste; make buildings more efficient in the use of materials and energy; and reduce environmental impact during and after construction. CALGreen contains requirements for storm water control during construction; construction waste reduction; indoor water use reduction; material selection; natural resource conservation; site irrigation conservation; and more.
All fuel calculations are based on the total Carbon Dioxide Equivalent (CO2e) value calculated for each construction phase and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) using the California Emission Estimator Model (CalEEMod) version 2022.1. Data are reported in annual metric tons of CO2e for the duration of each construction phase. Metric tons are converted to kilogram CO2e and then divided by a conversion factor used by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to estimate gallons of gasoline consumed based on carbon emissions. For the purpose of determining fuel demand, it was assumed that all worker vehicles would be use gasoline and all construction equipment would diesel-fueled. Deisel demand would be approximately 22,659 gallons. Demand for gasoline would be approximately 504 gallons. During operation, the project would generate demand for approximately 30,706 kilowatt hours (kWh) of electricity and 142,585 British Thermal Units (BTU) of natural gas annually. The annual gasoline demand generated by passenger vehicles visiting the site would be approximately 6,584 gallons.
Compliance with state Title 24 and CALGreen standards would ensure that the Project would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources. No further Project-specific mitigation measures would be required. Implementation of the Project would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources that may have a significant impact on the environment.
Impacts would be less than significant; and thus, would not be a significant effect not discussed in the 2007 Initial Study.
b. Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? No Impact. Several levels of government have implemented regulatory programs in response to reducing GHG emissions, which consequently serve to increase energy efficiency statewide. Multiple state agencies, including CARB, California Energy Commission, California Public Utilities Commission, CalRecycle, California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), and the Department of Water Resources have developed regulatory and incentive programs that promote energy efficiency. Many of the measures are generally beyond the ability of any future development to implement and are implemented by utility providers or manufacturers.
The project does not conflict with any state or local plans for renewable energy efficiency. The project would employ standard methods of construction and does not propose to create a project condition post-construction whereby a greater energy, relative to projects of a similar scope would occur. The project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. No impact would result from the project under this threshold; and thus, would not be a significant effect not discussed in the 2007 Initial Study.
As stated, this topical issue was not addressed in the 2007 Initial Study. However, based on the foregoing analysis and information, there is no evidence that the project would result in any significant energy Attachment "5"
878
Item8.
Initial Study Addendum -23- City of Escondido, California impact.
Potentially
Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mit. Less than Significant Impact No Impact
14.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project:
a. Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
(i.) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area, or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault (Refer to DM&G Pub. 42)?
(ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
(iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? (iv) Landslides?
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in onsite or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the 1994 UBC, creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?
f. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geological feature?
2007 Initial Study
The highest fill areas proposed are approximately 10 feet in height, consistent with the maximum height allowed in the City's Grading Ordinance. The deepest cut areas are approximately 6 feet deep and located within the northern portion of the site. It is reasonably anticipated that conventional grading practices can be utilized to develop the site without the need for blasting. If blasting is required it would likely be limited to the central portion of the site and the contractor will be required to obtain the necessary permits and follow all City of Escondido procedures.
The site is not located on any active or potentially active fault trace as defined by the California Division of Mines and Geology. The nearest active fault to the site is the Rose Canyon Fault, located approximately 11 miles to the west. Other nearby faults include the Elsinore-Julian Fault and the Newport-Inglewood Fault. The site is not considered to possess a significantly greater seismic risk than that of the surrounding area based on accounts from other geotechnical investigations for projects developed in the area; therefore a significant geology and soils impact would not occur.
Proposed Project
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death Attachment "5"
879
Item8.
Initial Study Addendum -24- City of Escondido, California involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
Less Than Significant Impact. In 1972, the state passed the Alquist-Priolo (AP) Earthquake Zoning Act to help identify areas subject to severe ground shaking. Earthquake faults are categorized as active, potentially active, and inactive. A fault is classified as active if it is included as an Earthquake Fault Hazard Zone (EFHZ), which indicated movement within the past 11,000 years. The purpose of this Act is to prohibit the placement of most structures for human occupancy across the traces of active faults; thereby mitigating the hazard of fault ruptures. EFHZs identify the probability of ground rupture for future earthquakes. Where such zones are designated, no buildings or structures may be constructed on the trace of the fault. No EFHZs exist within the City of Escondido as reported in the City of Escondido General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Section 4.6, Geology/Soils. Impacts related to geology/soils would be consistent with those identified in the 2007 Initial Study. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
Less Than Significant Impact. Southern California is a seismically active region likely to experience, on average, one earthquake of Magnitude 7.0, and ten (10) earthquakes of Magnitude 6.0 over a period of 10 years. Active faults are those faults that are considered likely to undergo renewed movement within a period of concern to humans. These include faults that are currently slipping, those that display earthquake activity, and those that have historical surface rupture. The California Geological Survey (CGS) defines active faults as those which have had surface displacement within Holocene times (about the last 11,000 years). Such displacement can be recognized by the existence of sharp cliffs in young alluvium, un-weathered terraces, and offset modern stream courses. Potentially active faults are those believed to have generated earthquakes during the Quaternary period, but prior to Holocene times.
The San Jacinto Fault, Elsinore Fault and Rose Canyon Fault have the potential to result in seismic ground shaking within the proposed project area. Conformance with standard engineering practices and design criteria would reduce the effects of seismic ground shaking to less than significant. Impacts related to geology/soils would be consistent with those identified in the 2007 Initial Study. iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Less Than Significant Impact. Liquefaction is the loss of strength of cohesionless soils when the pore water pressure in the soil becomes equal to the confining pressure. Liquefaction generally occurs as a “quicksand” type of ground failure caused by strong ground shaking. The primary factors influencing liquefaction potential include groundwater, soil type, relative density of the sandy soils, confining pressure, and the intensity and duration of ground shaking. According to Figure 4.6-3 in the General Plan EIR, the project area is not susceptible to liquefaction hazards. A less than significant impact would result from the project under this threshold; and thus, would not be a significant effect not discussed in the 2007 Initial Study.
iv) Landslides?
No Impact. Landslides are mass movements of the ground that include rock falls, relatively shallow slumping and sliding of soil, and deeper rotational or transitional movement of soil or rock. However, according to the According to Figure 4.6-4 in the General Plan EIR, the project is not located within a landslide hazard area. No impact would occur. A less than significant impact would result from the project under this threshold; and thus, would not be a significant effect not discussed in the 2007 Initial Study. b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Attachment "5"
880
Item8.
Initial Study Addendum -25- City of Escondido, California Less Than Significant Impact. Grading and trenching during the construction phase of the project would displace soils and temporarily increase the potential for soils to be subject to wind and water erosion. The contractor will be required to comply with standard engineering practices for erosion control and implement applicable elements of the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) during ground disturbing activities. Impacts would be less than significant. A less than significant impact would result from the project under this threshold; and thus, would not be a significant effect not discussed in the 2007 Initial Study. c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
Less Than Significant Impact. Subsidence, which can be caused by groundwater depletion, seismic activity, and other factors, refers to elevation changes of the land whether slow or sudden. The underlying geologic formations in the proposed project area are mostly granitic and have a very low potential of subsidence. No water extractions or similar practices are anticipated to be necessary that are typically associated with project-related subsidence effects. In addition, surface material that would be disrupted or displaced would be balanced and re-compacted on-site or removed. Adherence to standard engineering practices would result in less than significant impacts related to subsidence of the land. The site is generally flat. There are no steep slopes that could cause a landslide. As stated, there is no liquefaction potential in the project area. A less than significant impact would result from the project under this threshold; and thus, would not be a significant effect not discussed in the 2007 Initial Study.
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? No Impact. As stated in the General Plan EIR, Section 4.6, Geology/Soils, certain types of clay soils expand when they are saturated and shrink when dried. These are called expansive soils and can pose a threat to the integrity of structures built on them without proper engineering. Expansive soils are derived primarily from weathering of feldspar minerals and volcanic ash. The expansion and contraction of the soil varies with the soil moisture content (wet or dry), and can be aggravated by the way a property is maintained or irrigated.
Human activities can increase the moisture content of the soils, and the threat of expansive soil damage.
According to Figure 4.6-5 in the General Plan EIR, there is no known potential for expansive soils occurring in the project area. No impact would occur. No impact would result from the project under this threshold; and thus, would not be a significant effect not discussed in the 2007 Initial Study. e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? No Impact. The proposed project does not include the implementation of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. The project would connect to the existing sewer system located along Bernardo Avenue or Hamilton Lane. No impact would result from the project under this threshold; and thus, would not be a significant effect not discussed in the 2007 Initial Study. e) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geological feature? No Impact. According to the City of Escondido General Plan EIR Figure 4.5-2, the geologic formation on the project site is comprised of granitic and other intrusive crystalline rocks of all ages, mid-Cretaceous. Geologic formations that are composed entirely of volcanic or plutonic igneous rock, such as basalt or granite, do not have any potential for producing fossil remains. No impacts to paleontological resources would occur. No impact would result from the project under this threshold; and thus, would not be a significant effect not discussed in the 2007 Initial Study. Based on the foregoing analysis and information, there is no evidence that the project would require a major change to the 2007 Initial Study. The project would not result in any new significant impact, nor would a substantial increase in the severity of impacts from that described in the 2007 Initial Study result.
Attachment "5"
881
Item8.
Initial Study Addendum -26- City of Escondido, California Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mit. Less than Significant Impact No Impact
14.8 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project:
a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
2007 Initial Study
An evaluation of greenhouse gas impacts was not required under Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines when the 2007 Initial Study was prepared.
a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Less Than Significant Impact. The vast majority of individual projects do not generate sufficient GHG emissions to create a project-specific impact through a direct influence to climate change; therefore, the issue of climate change typically involves an analysis of whether a project’s contribution towards an impact is cumulatively considerable. “Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, other current projects, and probable future projects (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15355). For future projects, the significance of GHG emissions are evaluated based on locally adopted quantitative thresholds, or consistency with a regional GHG reduction plan (such as a Climate Action Plan).
The City of Escondido approved a Climate Action Plan in March 2021. This CAP meets the criteria identified in Section 15183.5 of the CEQA Guidelines and, therefore, is considered a “qualified” CAP and may be used for the specific purpose of streamlining the analysis of GHG emissions for subsequent projects.
Furthermore, a project’s incremental contribution to cumulative GHG emissions may be determined not to be cumulatively considerable. The City has established a GHG screening threshold (set at 500 metric tons carbon dioxide equivalent [“MTCO2e”] per year) for new development projects to determine if a project would need to demonstrate consistency with the CAP through the Checklist. New development projects that are consistent with the General Plan and are expected to generate fewer than 500 MTCO2e annually would not have a cumulative impact and would not be required to provide additional analysis.
Construction Emissions
Construction of the proposed project would generate temporary GHG emissions primarily associated with the operation of construction equipment, worker trips and truck trips required for hauling excavation spoils, materials and equipment. Site preparation and grading typically generate the greatest emission quantities because the use of heavy equipment is greatest during this phase of construction. Emissions associated with the construction period were estimated based on the projected maximum amount of equipment that would be used on-site at one time. Air districts such as the SDAPCD have recommended amortizing constructionrelated emissions over a 30-year period to calculate annual emissions.
Operational Emissions
Default values used in CalEEMod version 2022.1 are based on the CEC sponsored California Commercial End Attachment "5"
882
Item8.
Initial Study Addendum -27- City of Escondido, California Use Survey (CEUS) and Residential Appliance Saturation Survey (RASS) studies. CalEEMod provides operational emissions of CO2, N2O and CH4. This methodology has been subjected to peer review by numerous public and private stakeholders, and in particular by the CEC; and therefore, is considered reasonable and reliable for use in GHG impact analysis pursuant to CEQA. It is also recommended by CAPCOA (January 2008).
Emissions associated with area sources (i.e., consumer products, landscape maintenance, and architectural coating) were calculated in CalEEMod based on standard emission rates from CARB, USEPA, and district supplied emission factor values (CalEEMod User Guide, 2022). Emissions from waste generation were also calculated in CalEEMod and are based on the IPCC’s methods for quantifying GHG emissions from solid waste using the degradable organic content of waste (CalEEMod User Guide, April 2022). Waste disposal rates by land use and overall composition of municipal solid waste in California was primarily based on data provided by the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle).
Emissions from water and wastewater usage calculated in CalEEMod were based on the default electricity intensity from the CEC’s 2006 Refining Estimates of Water-Related Energy Use in California using the average values for Northern and Southern California. The proposed Project would generate 84 MT of CO2e emissions annually including the amortized construction emissions. This would be less than the 500 MT CO2e screening threshold referenced above. A less than significant impact would result from the project under this threshold; and thus, would not be a significant effect not discussed in the 2007 Initial Study. b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
No Impact. Specific goals and actions included in the City of Escondido CAP and Title 24 that pertain to the proposed project include those addressing energy and water use reduction, promotion of green building measures, waste reduction, and reduction in vehicle miles traveled. The proposed project would also be required to implement all mandatory green building measures for new residential and commercial development under the CALGreen Code. This would require the project be designed to reduce water consumption, increase building system efficiencies, divert construction waste from landfills, and install low pollutant emitting finish materials. Implementation of these building and appliance standards would result in water, energy, and construction waste reductions for the proposed project. These requirements are included in the CAP Checklist prepared by the applicant to demonstrate project consistency with applicable elements of the CAP.
Consistency with EO S-3-05 and SB 32
EO S-3-05. This EO establishes the following goals: GHG emissions should be reduced to 2000 levels by 2010, to 1990 levels by 2020, and to 80% below 1990 levels by 2050.
SB 32. This bill establishes a statewide GHG emissions reduction target whereby CARB, in adopting rules and regulations to achieve the maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective GHG emissions reductions, shall ensure that statewide GHG emissions are reduced to at least 40% below 1990 levels by December 31, 2030.
The City prepared a GHG emissions inventory included in the above-referenced CAP. The City’s Final CAP was adopted on May 8, 2021. The CAP demonstrates that, with implementation of applicable General Plan objectives and policies, coupled with state and federal actions and execution of CAP measures and actions, the City will reduce GHG emissions consistent with state goals established by Senate Bill 32 and maintain a trajectory to meet its proportional share of the 2050 state target identified in Executive Order S-3-05. As stated, GHG emissions would not exceed the screening threshold of 500 MT CO2e annually; and thus, would not conflict with applicable State goals and policies regarding GHG reductions, include SB 32 and Executive Order S-3-05.
CARB has indicated that statewide, California is on track to achieving both the 2030 and 2050 goals. This is confirmed in the 2017 Scoping Plan and 2022 Update, which states that the Scoping Plan builds upon the Attachment "5"
883
Item8.
Initial Study Addendum -28- City of Escondido, California successful framework established by the Initial Scoping Plan and First Update, while identifying new, technologically feasible and cost-effective strategies to ensure that California meets its GHG reduction targets.
As stated, the project would not generate enough GHG emissions to cumulatively contribute to global climate change. Measures implemented by the project to reduce overall GHG emissions would also contribute to GHG statewide reduction goals. Thus, the project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. No impact would result from the project under this threshold; and thus, would not be a significant effect not discussed in the 2007 Initial Study.
As stated, this topical issue was not addressed in the 2007 Initial Study. However, based on the foregoing analysis and information, there is no evidence that the project would result in any significant greenhouse gas impacts.
Potentially
Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mit. Less than Significant Impact No Impact
14.9 HAZARDS & HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project:
a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? f. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
g. Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires? 2007 Initial Study
Research for the area was conducted by the County Department of Environmental Health and the site was not identified on the County's list of hazardous waste sites. The County Department of Environmental Health regulates the storage and on-site use of any potential hazardous materials such as fuel oil, motor oil, paints and hazardous cleaning materials to prevent the accidental release of, proper prevention of pollution of the environment. While the site is in the vicinity of the Chatham Brothers Barrel Yard, a State Superfund Site, the proposed project site was not known to store hazardous chemicals. Of the three wells previously installed to monitor groundwater quality beneath the site, two wells (MW27 and MW28) were approved by the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Board) for closure on October 24, 2006. These have subsequently been removed and filled in. The Regional Board also determined the remaining well (MW57), which is located in the northwestern portion of the 6.28-acre site, should remain or that a replacement well, at a location 235 feet to the northwest, and within the proposed private street would be approved if it provides equivalent deep aquifer information.
The property is not adjacent or within two miles of an airport. Any proposed development would not impair the Attachment "5"
884
Item8.
Initial Study Addendum -29- City of Escondido, California City's emergency response plan according to discussions with the City Fire Department. The areas will not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildfires since the site is in a suburban setting and once developed much of the property surrounding structures will be irrigated. Any impacts from the proposed annexation and subdivision map creation will be less than significant. Any further development projects will be subject to CEQA review.
A mitigation measure related to monitoring well MW57 stated that the well is to remain on the project site and be accessible to the Chatham Brothers RP Group for monitoring purposes until officially released. Upon release, it is to be removed per Regional Board and City of Escondido standards. Alternatively, if a new replacement well is installed nearby and approved by the Regional Board and Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), existing well MW57 can also then be released and removed per Regional Board and City of Escondido standards. A letter prepared by the Chatham Site PRP Group (May 21, 2009), provided documentation to the California Department of Toxic and Substance Control, that well(s) MW56 (which is unrelated to the project site) and MW57 were decommissioned. The documentation has been provided as Appendix E.
Proposed Project
Information in this section is in part, based on the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment 1100 Hamilton Lane, prepared by Weis Environmental, April 2025 (Appendix F) a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
No Impact. The proposed project would be comprised of single-family residential development. It would not involve the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Impacts related to this threshold would be consistent with those identified in the 2007 Initial Study. b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project is not anticipated to result in a release of hazardous materials into the environment. However, during the short-term period of project construction, there is the possibility of accidental release of hazardous substances such as spilling of hydraulic fluid or diesel fuel associated with construction equipment maintenance. The level of risk associated with the accidental release of these hazardous substances is not considered significant due to the small volume and low concentration of hazardous materials. The contractor will be required to use standard construction controls and safety procedures which would avoid and minimize the potential for accidental release of such substances into the environment. Impacts related to this threshold would be consistent with those identified in the 2007 Initial Study.
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? No Impact. The closest school to the site is Bernardo Elementary School located at 1222 Mountain Heights Drive approximately 0.23 south of the site. While located within ¼ mile of the site, the project would be a single-family residential development. Other than common cleaning supplies, no hazardous materials would be used or generated on-site or proximal to Bernardo Elementary School. This specific threshold was not discussed in the 2007 Initial Study; however, no impact would exceed this threshold. d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or Attachment "5"
885
Item8.
Initial Study Addendum -30- City of Escondido, California the environment?
No Impact. According to the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (Weis Environmental, Inc., April 2025), the proposed project site is not included on a list of sites containing hazardous materials and would not result in a significant hazard to the public or to the environment. As discussed in the 2007 Initial Study and summarized above, the Chatham Brothers Barrel Yard, a State Superfund Site, is located proximal to the site.
The Phase I ESA prepared for the proposed project states the site is located approximately 700 feet northwest of the site. Further, a water supply well is present on the southern adjoining property of the site and to date, no ground water impacts have been reported in this well. Consistent with the above-referenced mitigation measure, a potentially responsible party is required to complete continued monitoring of groundwater in the area and any future mitigation that may be required should a change in conditions occur. As stated, the onsite MW57 was decommissioned as documented (see Appendix F). Thus, the former Chatham Brothers Barrel Yard is not a recognized environmental condition in connection with the site. This determination would not represent information related to a new or previously undisclosed significant environmental impact. The project would be consistent with the 2007 Initial Study. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? No Impact. The proposed project is located approximately 10.7 miles southeast of McClellen-Palomar Airport.
Per Exhibit III-5 of the McClellen-Palomar Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP), the project site is located outside the safety compatibility area. Thus, airport operations would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. Impacts related to this threshold would be consistent with those identified in the 2007 Initial Study.
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
No Impact. The proposed project would develop five new single-family residential lots on a 6.02 gross acre site. Both Bernardo Avenue and Hamilton Lane would likely be used by residents for evacuation. The proposed project would have no impact on emergency response plans or emergency evacuation plans. No revisions to adopted emergency plans would be required as a result of the proposed project. Impacts related to this threshold would be consistent with those identified in the 2007 Initial Study. g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
No Impact. The project site is located within a developed area and a Local Responsibility Area for fire services. The project site would be served by the Escondido Fire Department. The project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of wildland fires because the project site does not adjoin undeveloped wildland areas. Impacts related to this threshold would be consistent with those identified in the 2007 Initial Study.
Based on the foregoing analysis and information, there is no evidence that the project would require a major change to the 2007 Initial Study. The project would not result in any new significant impact, nor would a substantial increase in the severity of impacts from that described in the 2007 Initial Study result. Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mit. Less than Significant Impact No Impact
14.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project:
Attachment "5"
886
Item8.
Initial Study Addendum -31- City of Escondido, California Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mit. Less than Significant Impact No Impact a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality? b. Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
i. result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; ii. substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite;
iii. create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or
iv. Otherwise impede or redirect flood flows?
d. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
e. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
2007 Initial Study
The existing parcel includes gentle to moderate slopes (generally between 0 to 15% slope.) and primarily drains east to west, although the eastern edge does drain eastward. The amount of run-off from the site would be expected to incrementally increase upon development of the proposed lots due to impervious surfaces associated with the development of the residential structures and paving. The project would be required to comply with latest National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards. The City of Escondido's Engineering Department has determined that because the project is required to have all postconstruction storm water treatment measures in place applicable prior to final occupancy and meet all City of Escondido Stormwater Management Standards thereafter, the runoff from the project would not be considered significant and the project would not materially degrade the existing drainage facilities. The City would provide sewer and water service from mains within the adjacent street or easements; consequently, no significant impact is expected to occur to the groundwater table. The project is outside the 100-year flood plain area as identified on current Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM). Therefore, the project site is not subject to potential flooding, landslides or mudflows. Part of the project site is over a once contaminated groundwater, therefore, mitigation will be part of the approval as follows: 1) no drinking water wells shall be drilled on the site; 2) the existing monitoring well on site shall remain until released by DEH; and 3) no excavations shall be allowed on site without proper permits.
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality?
No Impact. The project would construct five new single-family residences and one stormwater retention basin. The basin would be constructed with an impervious liner over gravel and an underdrain system. The filtration media would be comprised of sand, sandy loam and compost to support native plant material.
Stormwater would drain through the media and convey into the underdrain and outlet pipe which would connect to the existing municipal stormwater system located along Hamilton Lane. A riser pipe would be constructed in the pond to directly convey overflow into the outflow pipe. Stormwater would not violate water quality standards or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality. No impact would occur.
Impacts related to this threshold would be consistent with those identified in the 2007 Initial Study.
Attachment "5"
887
Item8.
Initial Study Addendum -32- City of Escondido, California b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? No Impact. The project would increase the amount of impervious area on the site. However, it would not pump groundwater nor is the site over an aquifer recharge area such that the project would substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge in a manner that the project would impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin. Further, storm flows not conveyed into the on-site basin would percolate into the ground; thus, providing some recharge post-construction. No impact would occur. Impacts related to this threshold would be consistent with those identified in the 2007 Initial Study.
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
Less Than Significant Impact. The drainage pattern would be altered relative to existing conditions.
Stormwater would be conveyed into a new bioretention basin rather than sheet flow through the site.
However, no stream or river would be altered. Any temporary erosion control measures required per the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan during construction and post-construction Best Management Practices (BMPs) would minimize erosion and transport of sediments off-site. No impact would occur. Impacts related to this threshold would be consistent with those identified in the 2007 Initial Study. i. result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or offsite; Less Than Significant Impact. As stated, implementation of standard erosion control measures would minimize erosion and transport of sediments off-site. No impact would occur. Impacts related to this threshold would be consistent with those identified in the 2007 Initial Study. ii. substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite;
No Impact. As stated, implementation of standard erosion control measures would minimize erosion and transport of sediments off-site. No off-site flooding would occur with implementation of the proposed project.
No impact would occur. Impacts related to this threshold would be consistent with those identified in the 2007 Initial Study.
iii. create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or No Impact. Under the project design, all runoff would convey into the on-site stormwater bioretention basin.
The project will not result in cross-lot drainage or an increase in the rate of off-site run-off in a manner that would exceed the existing capacity of the off-site stormwater system. Further, a riser pipe would be constructed to convey any overflow directly into the municipal stormwater system. No impact would occur.
Impacts related to this threshold would be consistent with those identified in the 2007 Initial Study. iv. Otherwise impede or redirect flood flows?
No Impact. As stated, the downstream point of stormwater discharge from the site will not be altered from the Attachment "5"
888
Item8.
Initial Study Addendum -33- City of Escondido, California predevelopment condition. However, all runoff would be conveyed into a new on-site stormwater bioretention basin. The project will not result in cross-lot drainage or an increase in the rate of off-site run-off in a manner that would impede or redirect flood flows. The project is required by law to implement stormwater Best Management Practices during construction to minimize erosion and pollutant discharge associated with stormwater runoff to the downstream drainage system. No impact would occur. Impacts related to this threshold would be consistent with those identified in the 2007 Initial Study. d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? No Impact. The project site is not located within a dam inundation area nor are there large open water bodies proximal to the site that would pose a potential seiche impact. The project site is not located within the San Diego County Tsunami Hazard Area as depicted in the California Department of Conservation tsunami map. https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/tsunami/maps/san-diego. No impact would occur. This specific threshold was not discussed in the 2007 Initial Study; however, no impact would exceed this threshold. e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
No Impact. Per the City of Escondido 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, minimal groundwater sources are found throughout the City’s service area. Groundwater wells are privately owned and maintained. The City does not participate in any groundwater withdrawal, storage, or replenishment programs. No groundwater would be pumped on-site nor would it be used as part of potable water supplies provided to the project by the City of Escondido. Thus, the project would not result in any significant impacts relating to water quality. No impact would occur. This specific threshold was not discussed in the 2007 Initial Study; however, no impact would occur this threshold.
Based on the foregoing analysis and information, there is no evidence that the project would require a major change to the 2007 Initial Study. The project would not result in any new significant impact, nor would a substantial increase in the severity of impacts from that described in the 2007 Initial Study result. Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mit. Less than Significant Impact No Impact
14.11 LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:
a. Physically divide an established community?
b. Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
2007 Initial Study
The City of Escondido General Plan designates the area as Estate I, allowing single-family residential development. The objective of the Estate I category is to promote single-family development with a maximum density of 1 unit per acre on relatively large lots with minimum 40,000 sq. ft. lot sizes. This designation is often applied in transitional areas between more intensive Suburban and less intensive Rural II development. Public wastewater collection and treatment are required in these areas only if the property cannot accommodate a functional septic system.
The extent of dwelling units permitted on the proposed development by Estate I is dependent on the topography of the site. The General Plan indicates that the maximum development yield of Estate I lands shall be sensitive to topography and be calculated according to the following slope categories:
Attachment "5"
889
Item8.
Initial Study Addendum -34- City of Escondido, California 0-15%: 1 dwelling unit per 1 acre;
15-25%: 1 dwelling unit per 2 acres;
25-35%: 1 dwelling unit per 4 acres; and
35+ 1: dwelling unit per 20 acres.
The minimum lot size shall be 40,000 square feet, unless the development is clustered. Based on the variable slope provisions contained in the City's General Plan, 6.02 dwelling units would be allowed for a subdivision map, which is consistent with the proposed 5-lot map submitted. The existing zoning of the entire site is proposed to be pre-zoned to RE-40, which is consistent with the General Plan. From a "plan to ground" analysis, the proposal would add five units to the 6.02-acre site. This is not considered significant since the proposed project would be consistent with existing adopted City of Escondido land use policies. No significant land use impact would occur as a result of the proposed project.
Proposed Project
a) Physically divide an established community?
No Impact. The proposed project would construct five new single-family residences and one new stormwater basin on a vacant 6.02-acre site zoned RE-40. The RE-40 designation requires a minimum lot size of 40,000 square feet. The residential lots would be designed to meet or exceed the minimum standard. An existing single-family lot is bordered to the north, south and east by the proposed project. This lot would retain its existing access to Bernardo Avenue. The project will not have an impact on the physical arrangement of an established community. Therefore, no impact would occur. This specific threshold was not discussed in the 2007 Initial Study; however, no impact would occur under this threshold. b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental impact? No Impact. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Element’s designation for the project site and with the Official Zoning Map designation of the property. As stated in the General Plan Land Use Element, the Residential Estate designation accommodates detached single-family homes on large lots.
This designation applies to areas that are on the edge of urban development pattern or in areas that are already characterized by an estate development. Clustering is permitted pursuant to General Plan Residential Clustering Policies.
Land Use and Community Form - GOAL 1: A community composed of distinct residential neighborhoods, business districts, and employment centers, whose urban form reflects the natural environmental setting.
Community Character Policy 1.1 New development should serve to reinforce the city’s present development pattern of higher-intensity development within the downtown area and lower-intensity development in outlying areas. As a guide toward accomplishing this objective, new development projects shall be at an appropriate density or clustered intensity based upon their compatibility with the majority of the existing surrounding land uses. This policy shall limit density transfers from constrained portions of a property as defined in the land use and open space goals.
Consistent. The proposed project would construct five new single-family residences and one stormwater basin with related infrastructure improvements. The proposed density would be consistent with the current RE-40 zoning.
Community Character Policy 1.2 The boundaries of the Land Use categories depicted on the General Plan are not precise. However, the categories are generally intended to avoid intensification of existing land use or zoning designations where land use compatibility and the objectives of the General Plan are at issue.
Consistent. The proposed project would construct five new single-family residences and one stormwater Attachment "5"
890
Item8.
Initial Study Addendum -35- City of Escondido, California basin with related infrastructure improvements. The proposed density would be consistent with the current RE-40 zoning and the surrounding properties. The project would develop a vacant site; however, it would not intensify the intensity of existing development.
Community Character Policy 1.3 Focus development into areas where land use changes achieve the community’s long-term goals. Facilitate development that is consistent with the build out vision for each area through incentive programs and efficient administrative and discretionary approval processes for plot plans, Planned Developments, Area Plans, Specific Plans, and Zoning Overlays.
Consistent. The proposed density would be consistent with the current RE-40 zoning. The project would facilitate development that is consistent with the zoning designation which would support the City’s long-term goals. This specific threshold was not discussed in the 2007 Initial Study; however, no impact would exceed this threshold.
Based on the foregoing analysis and information, there is no evidence that the project would require a major change to the 2007 Initial Study. The project would not result in any new significant impact, nor would a substantial increase in the severity of impacts from that described in the 2007 Initial Study result. Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mit. Less than Significant Impact No Impact
14.12 MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
2007 Initial Study
No significant mineral resources have been identified on the subject site. The limited size of the project would not substantially increase the use of, or result in the depletion of any nonrenewable natural resources.
Proposed Project
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
No Impact. The City’s General Plan and Zoning Ordinance would not permit any mineral extraction on or within the vicinity of the project site. Further, the site is not designated as area with known mineral resources.
No impact would occur. This would be consistent with the 2007 Initial Study. b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
No Impact. Refer to Response 14.12a, above. No impact would occur. This would be consistent with the 2007 Initial Study.
Based on the foregoing analysis and information, there is no evidence that the project would require a major change to the 2007 Initial Study. The project would not result in any new significant impact, nor would a substantial increase in the severity of impacts from that described in the 2007 Initial Study result.
Attachment "5"
891
Item8.
Initial Study Addendum -36- City of Escondido, California Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mit. Less than Significant Impact No Impact
14.13 NOISE. Would the project:
a. Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
b. Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
c. For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
2007 Initial Study
The Noise Element in the City's General Plan contains noise policies which outline acceptable noise levels associated with each type of land use. A 60 dBA CNEL exposure is considered normally acceptable for exterior residential land uses and 45 dBA CNEL for interior levels based upon the assumption that any buildings involved are of normal conventional construction, without any special noise insulation requirements.
The City requires that noise levels be presented in terms of Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL). CNEL is a weighted sound level during a 24-hour period, after the addition of 5 decibels (dB) to average sound levels at evening hours (7 PM to 10 PM) and 10 dB to the average night hours (10 PM to 7 AM). The addition of 5 and 10 dB is applied to account for noise sensitivity during evening and nighttime hours.
To assess future noise generation associated with the improvement of the City's circulation system, a Final Environmental Impact Report was prepared in August 2000 for the Escondido General Plan Update illustrating existing and future noise contours. Noise levels depicted for the site show the exposure levels for the entire subject site at below the 60 CNEL standard contained in the Noise/Land Use Compatibility Guidelines of the General Plan. Therefore, the exposure to exterior noise levels is within acceptable levels and with proper design of the future residential units, it is anticipated that the exposure to interior noise will also be within acceptable levels. Therefore, no significant long-term noise impacts associated with the development are anticipated.
Future grading and construction on the site would create temporary noise impacts. Modem construction equipment, properly used and maintained, would meet the noise limits contained in the City's Noise Ordinance. All noise generated by the project would be required to comply with the City's Noise Ordinance.
Upon completion of the project, all construction noise from the project will cease. Because construction operations would be required to conform to the City's Noise Ordinance and because construction noise is temporary, no significant impact from construction noise is anticipated.
Proposed Project
Regulatory Standards.
State Standards. The State of California has adopted noise compatibility guidelines for general land use planning. Land uses addressed by the State standards and the acceptable noise categories for each land use Attachment "5"
892
Item8.
Initial Study Addendum -37- City of Escondido, California are included in the State of California General Plan Guidelines, which is published and updated by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. The level of acceptability of the noise environment is dependent upon the activity associated with the particular land use. According to the State, an exterior noise environment up to 65 Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) is “normally acceptable” for single and multi-family residential uses, up to 75 CNEL is “conditionally acceptable” with special noise insulation requirements, while 75 CNEL and above is identified as "clearly unacceptable" noise levels for residential uses. The maximum allowable interior noise level for residential structures is 45 CNEL.
California Green Building Code. Section 5.507.4.2 of the 2019 California Green Building Code (CALGreen) stipulates that for buildings exposed to a noise level of 65 dB or more when measured as a 1-hour Equivalent Sound Level (Leq), the building façade, including walls, windows, and roofs, shall provide enough sound insulation so that the interior sound level from exterior sources does not exceed 50 dBA during any hour of operation. This applies to non-residential occupancies only. For renovation projects, the requirement only applies to the portion of the project within the scope of the renovation.
California Building Code. Section 1206.4 Allowable Interior Noise Levels of California Building Code 2022, the interior noise levels attributable to exterior sources shall not exceed 45 dB in any habitable room. The noise metric shall be either the day-night average sound level (Ldn) or the community noise equivalent level (CNEL) consistent with noise element of the local general plan.
City of Escondido Municipal Code. The City’s Noise Ordinance (Chapter 17, Article 12. Noise Abatement and Control of the Escondido Municipal Code prohibits the making of disturbing, excessive, offensive or unusually loud noises within the City limits. Excessive noise is considered as a detriment to public health, comfort, convenience, safety, welfare, and prosperity of City residents. Table 3-5 provides Section 17.229(a) sound limit levels for stationary sources at any point on or beyond the boundaries of the property from where the sound is originated according to land use type and a permitted time of day.
According to Section 17.234(a-e), construction activities may not exceed more than one hour of 75 dB sound levels and are limited to Monday through Friday between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., or on Saturdays between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. However, as stated in Section 17.242 (a), the City Manager may waive any or all of the provisions of this subsection in cases where a variance was obtained, and vehicles or equipment used are reduced to the lowest sounds levels while conducting effective operations Table 3 shows the sound level limits based on the district zones. The above regulatory standards for the project are summarized in Table 3:
Table 3
Sound Level Limits Based on District Zones
Base District Zone Time Applicable Limit – One
Hour Average Sound Level
(decibels)
Residential Zones 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. 50
10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. 45
Multi-residential Zones 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. 55
10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. 50
Commercial Zones 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. 60
10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. 55
Light Industrial/Industrial
Park
Anytime 70*
General Industrial Zones Anytime 75*
+ - Subject to provisions of Section 17-229 (c)(5).
City of Escondido General Plan Community Protection Element. As shown on Page VI-22 of the General Plan Community Protection Element, 24-hour average (Ldn or Community Noise Equivalent Level [CNEL]) noise levels ranging between 50 and 60 A-weighted decibels (dBA) are normally acceptable for residential uses. Noise levels ranging between 60 and 70 dBA CNEL are conditionally acceptable assuming the 45 dBA interior standard can be met. As shown in Figure VI-14, a project-related increase in ambient noise levels, when ambient conditions reach 65 dBA CNEL, is significant if it is 3 dBA or higher.
Vibration Standard and Guidelines. Vibration is a unique form of noise as the energy is transmitted through Attachment "5"
893
Item8.
Initial Study Addendum -38- City of Escondido, California buildings, structures and the ground whereas audible noise energy is transmitted through the air. Thus, vibration is generally felt rather than heard. The ground motion caused by vibration is measured as peak particle velocity (PPV) in inches per second. Vibration impacts to buildings are generally discussed in terms of PPV which describes particle movement over time (in terms of physical displacement of mass). Vibration can impact people, structures, and sensitive equipment groundborne vibration generated by construction projects is usually highest during pile driving, rock blasting, soil compacting, jack hammering, and other high impact demolition and excavation-related activities. Grading also has the potential to cause short-term vibration impacts if large bulldozers, loaded trucks, or other heavy equipment operate within proximity to sensitive land uses. Use of the PPV descriptor is common when addressing potential impacts to structures. Per Caltrans standards, excessive ground-borne vibration would occur if construction-related ground-borne vibration exceeds the “severe” vibration annoyance potential criteria for human receptors of 0.4 inch per second PPV or the damage potential criteria to older residential structures of 0.3 inch per second PPV for continuous/frequent intermittent construction sources.
a) Would the project cause a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
Temporary Construction Noise
Less than Significant Impact. During construction, equipment will be audible at off-site receivers. The closest is located near the center of the development area approximately 35 feet from the property boundary and 150 feet from the center of site. Noise levels associated with the use of common construction equipment are shown in Table 4. As shown, the maximum noise level for all the equipment that could be used on-site would exceed the 75 dBA standard referenced in Chapter 17-234 of the Escondido Municipal Code at 50 feet.
However, the code assumes a one-hour average (Leq) noise levels. Heavy equipment would not operate continuously at the same time and in the same location. Assuming, three pieces of equipment (i.e., scraper, loader and truck) are operating at 75, 100 and 150 feet from the nearest receiver over a one-hour period, the Leq would be 74.2 dBA which is less than the 75 dBA Leq standard. As stated in the 2007 Initial Study, the project would meet construction noise requirements. Impacts would be less than significant.
Table 4
Typical Maximum Construction Equipment Noise Levels
Equipment Onsite
Typical Maximum
Level (dBA) 50
Feet from the
Source
Typical Maximum
Level (dBA) 100 Feet
from the Source
Usage Factor
Air Compressor 78 72 40%
Backhoe 78 72 40%
Bobcat Tractor 84 78 40%
Attachment "5"
894
Item8.
Initial Study Addendum -39- City of Escondido, California Table 4
Typical Maximum Construction Equipment Noise Levels
Equipment Onsite
Typical Maximum
Level (dBA) 50
Feet from the
Source
Typical Maximum
Level (dBA) 100 Feet
from the Source
Usage Factor
Concrete Mixer 79 73 40%
Loader 79 73 40%
Bulldozer 82 76 40%
Jack Hammer 89 83 20%
Pavement Roller 80 74 20%
Street Sweeper 82 76 10%
Man Lift 75 69 20%
Dump Truck 77 71 40%
Mobile Crane 81 75 16%
Excavator/Scraper 84 78 40%
Source: FTA Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (September 2018), Table 7-1.
Noise levels are based on actual maximum measured noise levels at 50 feet (Lmax).
Noise levels are based on a noise attenuation associated with the usage factor.
Operational Noise
Exterior Traffic Noise. Traffic is the primary noise source that would be generated by operation of the proposed project. As stated, existing noise levels were measured along the northern site boundary on April 25, 2025. The measured Leq during the 15-minute monitoring period was 62.9 dBA Leq, or approximately 63.9 dBA CNEL. Ambient conditions are less than 65 dBA; the normally compatible noise level for residences referenced in the General Plan Community Protection Element policy for exterior noise exposure to transportation related noise at residences and other sensitive properties. A doubling or halving of sound energy is required for the human ear to perceive an increase in noise levels. A change of 3 dBA is associated with the doubling or halving of sound energy; thus, the project would need to double existing volumes on Hamilton Lane and Bernardo Avenue to create a significant traffic noise impact. During monitoring, a total of 55 cars/light trucks passed the monitoring site on Bernardo Avenue and 59 cars/light trucks passed the site on Hamilton Lane. Peak hour volumes would be approximately 220 vehicles on Bernardo Avenue and 236 vehicles on Hamilton Lane. The project would add approximately 0.5 trips per hour which when added to peak hour traffic would have no noticeable effect on noise levels. Operational impacts would be less than significant. This would be consistent with the 2007 Initial Study. b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Temporary Vibration Impacts
Less than significant. The vibration velocity level for perception by humans is approximately 65 VdB. A vibration velocity of 75 VdB is the approximate dividing line between barely perceptible and distinctly perceptible levels. As stated, the California Department of Transportation uses the following standards when addressing vibration. Excessive ground-borne vibration would occur if construction-related ground-borne vibration exceeds the “severe” vibration annoyance potential criteria for human receptors of 0.4 inch per second PPV or the damage potential criteria to older residential structures of 0.3 inch per second PPV for continuous/frequent intermittent construction sources, as specified by Caltrans (April 2020) The PPV and accompanying VdB level associated with common construction equipment is shown in Table 5. Based on the project geotechnical study and information from the applicant, heavy impact construction methods that could generate enough vibration to damage buildings proximal to the project site (i.e., pile driving, rock breaking, drilling, blasting) would not be required for the project.
Attachment "5"
895
Item8.
Initial Study Addendum -40- City of Escondido, California Construction activity on the project site would be temporary and vibration events would be transitory occuring only during equipment pass bys. Using vibration levels associated with a large bulldozer, the piece of grading equipment with the highest vibration level, as a worst-case scenario, groundborne vibration would be approximately 0.089 PPV at 25 feet (see Table 5 below). Similarly, if a hoe ram were required to break rocks during grading, a similar PPV would be expected. The PPV generated by a heavy bulldozer or hoe ram at 25 feet are below the vibration thresholds of significance referenced above.
Table 5
Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment
Peak Particle Velocity
(inches/second) at 25 feet
Approximate Vibration Level
LV (dVB) at 25 feet
Pile driver (impact) 1.518 (upper range) 112
0.644 (typical) 104
Pile driver (sonic) 0.734 upper range 105
0.170 typical 93
Clam shovel drop (slurry wall) 0.202 94
Hydromill (slurry wall - soil) 0.008 in soil 66
Hydromill (slurry wall - rock 0.017 in rock 75
Vibratory Roller 0.21 94
Hoe Ram 0.089 87
Large bulldozer 0.089 87
Caisson drill 0.089 87
Loaded trucks 0.076 86
Jackhammer 0.035 79
Small bulldozer 0.003 58
Source: Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, Federal Transit Administration, September 2018.
Operational Impacts. The proposed project is a residential development. It would not generate vibration postconstruction. No operational vibration impacts would occur. This issue was not discussed in the 2007 Initial Study; however, as stated, vibration during construction and operation would be less than significant. c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No Impact. The proposed project is located approximately 10.7 miles southeast of McClellen-Palomar Airport.
Per Exhibit III-1 of the McClellen-Palomar Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP), the project site is located outside the 60 dB CNEL noise contour. No impact would occur. This issue was not discussed in the 2007 Initial Study; however, as stated no impact would occur under this threshold.
Based on the foregoing analysis and information, there is no evidence that the project would require a major change to the 2007 Initial Study. The project would not result in any new significant impact, nor would a substantial increase in the severity of impacts from that described in the 2007 Initial Study result.
Attachment "5"
896
Item8.
Initial Study Addendum -41- City of Escondido, California Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mit. Less than Significant Impact No Impact
14.14 POPULATION & HOUSING. Would the project:
a. Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
b. Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 2007 Initial Study
Population within the City would incrementally increase as a result of developing the proposed five residential lots. The City's General Plan anticipates single-family residential use on the project site and the density of the proposal is consistent with the City's General Plan Land Use Designation of Estate I. The proposed development would incrementally contribute to the City's Regional Share Housing requirements. The development of the site would not be considered growth-inducing since the project site is located within an established community. Therefore, the project would not result in a significant population and housing impact.
Proposed Project
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project would construct five new single-family residences and one stormwater detention basin. As stated, the number of housing units in the City was projected to be 54,910 in 2025 and 58,990 in 2035, or an increase in 4,080 housing units. Furthermore, the City’s population was projected to be 165,127 residents in 2025 and 169,122 residents in 2035, or an increase of 3,995 residents over the period. The average household size is 2.8 people per dwelling unit, which translates into approximately 14 residents for the proposed project. The proposed number of units would be within the total projected for the City of Escondido by 2035. Further, because the project is consistent with the zoning and General Plan designation, the project would not induce substantial population growth. A less than significant impact would occur. This is consistent with the 2007 Initial Study. b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
No Impact. The proposed project would not require the removal existing housing, and therefore, would not necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. No impact would occur. This issue was not discussed in the 2007 Initial Study; however, no impact would occur under this threshold.
Based on the foregoing analysis and information, there is no evidence that the project would require a major change to the 2007 Initial Study. The project would not result in any new significant impact, nor would a substantial increase in the severity of impacts from that described in the 2007 Initial Study result. Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mit. Less than Significant Impact No Impact Attachment "5"
897
Item8.
Initial Study Addendum -42- City of Escondido, California Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mit. Less than Significant Impact No Impact
14.15 PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
Fire Protection?
Police Protection?
Schools?
Parks?
Other public facilities?
2007 Initial Study
Fire - The City Fire Department has indicated their ability to adequately serve the proposed project. One additional fire hydrant and a fire tum-around are to be located within the project is part of the proposal.
Law Enforcement -The City's Police Department currently serves the area and can easily included the property within a patrol beat. The Department has not expressed concerns regarding its ability to serve the site.
Schools - The site is within the Escondido Union School District and the Escondido Union High School District. Students would likely attend the new Bernardo Elementary School, Bear Valley Middle School, and San Pasqual High School. ꞏThe incremental impact of the proposed residential developments on the school system would be offset by the impact fees collected upon issuance of building permits.
Proposed Project
1) Fire protection?
Less than significant. The Escondido Fire Department provides fire and emergency medical services to the City of Escondido. Fire Station 5 is the nearest station to the project site. It is located at 2319 Felicita Road approximately 800 feet northeast of the site. Given the nature of the project, demand for fire and emergency service may increase over existing conditions. The project is consistent with the land use designation for the site and would not increase the population beyond what was anticipated in the Escondido General Plan.
Further, the project would be designed and constructed consistent with applicable codes and standards for access and fire suppression infrastructure. The payment of impact fees would fund any necessary improvements to the Escondido Fire Department infrastructure to maintain or improve the efficiency of department operations. The project would not require the construction of a new fire station to maintain service ratios within the service area served by Fire Station 5. Impacts would be less than significant. This determination would be consistent with the 2007 Initial Study.
Attachment "5"
898
Item8.
Initial Study Addendum -43- City of Escondido, California 2) Police protection?
Less than significant. The Escondido Police Department provides law enforcement services to the City of Escondido. The headquarters is located at 1163 North Centre City Parkway approximately 3.2 miles north of the site. Given the nature of the project, demand for law enforcement services may increase over existing conditions. The project is consistent with the land use designation for the site and would not increase the population beyond what was anticipated in the Escondido General Plan. The payment of impact fees would fund any necessary improvements to the Escondido Police Department infrastructure to maintain or improve the efficiency of department operations. The project would not require the construction of a new police station to maintain service ratios within the service area. Impacts would be less than significant. This determination would be consistent with the 2007 Initial Study.
3) Schools?
Less than significant. The nearest school to the project site is Bernardo Elementary School located at 1222 Mountain Heights Drive approximately 0.23 miles south of the site. The proposed project would likely provide housing for school-aged children; thus, affecting demand for school services. The applicant would be required to pay a developer fee of $4.46 per square foot (or current rate at the time of assessment) of assessable residential space to support ongoing development of school facilities. Impacts would be less than significant.
This determination would be consistent with the 2007 Initial Study. 4) Parks?
Less than significant. Felicita County Park is the most directly accessible park from the project site. It is located approximately 0.3 miles south of the project site along the east side of Park Drive. The increase in population living in the area is not expected to impact demand for park facilities. The project would not remove park or recreational facilities that would require replacement elsewhere. This issue was not addressed in the 2007 Initial Study; however, as stated, impacts would be less than significant. 5) Other public facilities?
Less than significant. Other public facilities include streets, libraries, senior centers, community centers, and pools, all of which are intended to serve the general public. No impacts to other public facilities are anticipated to occur with the construction and operation of the proposed project. This issue was not addressed in the 2007 Initial Study; however, as stated, impacts would be less than significant.
Based on the foregoing analysis and information, there is no evidence that the project would require a major change to the 2007 Initial Study. The project would not result in any new significant impact, nor would a substantial increase in the severity of impacts from that described in the 2007 Initial Study result. Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mit. Less than Significant Impact No Impact
14.16 RECREATION. Would the project:
a. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities, such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
Attachment "5"
899
Item8.
Initial Study Addendum -44- City of Escondido, California 2007 Initial Study
Development of the area would result in an incremental demand on the City's recreational facilities. However, the development fees paid by this project would offset the anticipated impact on the existing facilities. The proposed project would not affect existing recreational opportunities since the site is not used for recreational activities; consequently no significant impact to recreational resources would occur as a result of the project.
Proposed Project
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? No Impact. Implementation of the proposed project will not affect any existing park facilities nor increase the demand for additional recreational facilities to the extent that it would result in or increase physical deterioration of the facility. No impact would occur. This is consistent with the 2007 Initial Study. a) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? No Impact. No additional recreational facilities that could potentially result in an adverse impact on the environment would be constructed. No impact would occur. This is consistent with the 2007 Initial Study.
Based on the foregoing analysis and information, there is no evidence that the project would require a major change to the 2007 Initial Study. The project would not result in any new significant impact, nor would a substantial increase in the severity of impacts from that described in the 2007 Initial Study result. Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mit. Less than Significant Impact No Impact
14.17 TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project:
a. Conflict with program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
b. Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
c. Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
d. Result in inadequate emergency access?
2007 Initial Study
The project's private street (36' R-O-W) serving four of the proposed lots would connect with Hamilton Lane at a point nearly 300 feet east of the existing intersection of Bernardo Avenue and Hamilton Lane and directly across from the existing intersection of Hamilton Lane and Rancho Diego Court. Hamilton Lane is currently a Local Collector (63' R-O-W). Traffic from the newly proposed private street would either continue west or eastbound on Hamilton Lane. The fifth proposed lot would have access via a proposed driveway connected to Bernardo Avenue approximately 60 feet south of the intersection of Bernardo Avenue and Hamilton Lane.
The project will potentially add traffic to the existing intersection of Bernardo Avenue and Hamilton Lane Attachment "5"
900
Item8.
Initial Study Addendum -45- City of Escondido, California (County). Based on San Diego Association of Governments' (SANDAG) traffic generation rates for the San Diego region, the proposed subdivision would generate approximately 12 trips per dwelling unit, or approximately 60 new ADTs. The City's Engineering Department indicated that the increase of 60 additional trips onto this segment of Hamilton Lane will not significantly impact the existing Levels of Service on the adjacent streets and intersections. Stable traffic flow is maintained along the segment and ability to maneuver within the vicinity of the project and along the Hamilton Lane segment is not significantly restricted. The City's Engineering Department further indicated the proposed project is not anticipated to have any significant individual or cumulative impacts to the circulation system or degrade the LOS (Levels of Service) on any of the adjacent roadways or intersections.
Proposed Project
Information in this section is summarized from the Scoping Agreement for Transportation Studies, prepared by Mizuta Traffic Consulting, Inc., March 2025 and provided as Appendix G. a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
No Impact. The project would provide five new single-family residences and one stormwater basin. The project would generate approximately 80 daily trips. The project would not require any improvements to either Bernardo Avenue or Hamilton Lane. There is no existing transit proximal to the site; thus, transit would not be affected by the project. The project would provide curb/gutter/sidewalk frontage improvements which would address existing pedestrian deficiencies in the project area. No bicycle lanes are currently provided; thus, none would be affected by the project. The project would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities. This issue was not addressed in the 2007 Initial Study; however, no impact would occur under this threshold. b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? Less than Significant Impact. As stated, the project would generate 80 new daily vehicle trips. The Scoping Agreement for Transportation Studies states that the project would screen out of the need to provide a complete Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) analysis because it does not exceed 200 daily trips. The project would not conflict with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b). A less than significant impact would occur. This is consistent with the impact determination in the 2007 Initial Study. c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? No Impact. The project would provide five new residences and a stormwater basin. The project would not modify the existing transportation system or introduce incompatible uses. This issue was not addressed in the 2007 Initial Study; however, no impact would occur under this threshold. e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
No Impact. While the project would increase traffic by 80 daily trips, it would not adversely impact emergency access by providing inadequate site access or otherwise impacting use of local streets by emergency vehicles.
This issue was not addressed in the 2007 Initial Study; however, no impact would occur under this threshold.
Based on the foregoing analysis and information, there is no evidence that the project would require a major change to the 2007 Initial Study. The project would not result in any new significant impact, nor would a substantial increase in the severity of impacts from that described in the 2007 Initial Study result.
Attachment "5"
901
Item8.
Initial Study Addendum -46- City of Escondido, California Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mit. Less than Significant Impact No Impact
14.18 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
i. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or
ii. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe. 2007 Initial Study
An evaluation of tribal cultural resource impacts per AB 52 was not required under Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines when the 2007 Initial Study was prepared.
Proposed Project
i)) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k)? No impact. As stated in Section 14.5, Cultural Resources; the SCIC records search identified three cultural resources studies (SD-8588, -8596, and -10211) that were conducted within the project site and an additional 42 studies within a 0.5-mile radius. None identified any historic resources on-site that are listed or eligible for listing on the NRHP or CRHR. Further, no historic resources were identified. No impact to historic resources would occur.
ii) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is a resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1 (In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe)? Less than Significant. As stated in Section 4.15, no Tribal Cultural Resources were identified within the project site through Native American scoping. However, the Native American scoping identified the project Attachment "5"
902
Item8.
Initial Study Addendum -47- City of Escondido, California vicinity as highly sensitive for prehistoric/Native American resources. This sensitivity is supported by the five previously recorded resources with prehistoric components within 0.5-mile of the project site, including the CRHR/NRHP-listed multicomponent site P-37-000570 within Felicita Park, which contains a large prehistoric habitation component.
Given the presence of a previously recorded archaeological site within the project site and evidence of archaeological sensitivity indicated by the records search results and responses from tribal contacts, archaeological and Native American monitoring of all project-related earth disturbing activities is recommended as a Condition of Approval (CUL-1) for addressing any discoveries of cultural resources. The discovery of human remains would be addressed by complying with State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. With implementation of existing regulations addressing the discovery of human remains, impacts to cultural resources would be less than significant.
As stated, this topical issue was not addressed in the 2007 Initial Study. However, based on the foregoing analysis and information, there is no evidence that the project would result in any significant impacts related to tribal cultural resources.
Potentially
Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mit. Less than Significant Impact No Impact
14.19 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project:
a. Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water or wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? b. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years?
c. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
d. Generate solid waste is excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructures, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
e. Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
2007 Initial Study
Sewer Service. There currently exists a public sewer line in City streets immediately off-site that would accommodate the site's needs. City Public Utilities staff has confirmed that adequate treatment capacity exists to serve the project site.
Water Service. The site is within the Rincon Water District's Improvement District #1. Currently, adequate water delivery is available from water lines in adjacent streets.
Storm Water/Refuse Collection. The proposed project is required to comply with latest National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards, City of Escondido's post-construction storm water treatment measures, and meet all City of Escondido Storm Water Management Standards thereafter to meet state and federal requirements.
Attachment "5"
903
Item8.
Initial Study Addendum -48- City of Escondido, California Escondido Disposal currently provides solid waste service to the area and the project would not result in a significant increase in solid waste. The proposal would not result in any individual or cumulative impacts to utilities and service systems.
Streets. The annexation will include the portion of Bernardo Avenue west of the project, the portion of Hamilton Lane north of the project (to the centerline plus ten feet) and the intersection of Bernardo Avenue and Hamilton Lane. Road maintenance responsibilities will fall either on the City or the County and it is anticipated that no significant impacts to services will result.
Proposed Project
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded, water or wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?
No Impact. The project would connect to existing water/sewer and telecommunication infrastructure located adjacent to the site. No utility extensions, other than what is required to connect the project to adjacent offsite infrastructure would be required. The project would not require the expansion of existing water, wastewater or other utility systems, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects.
No impact would occur. This would be consistent with the 2007 Initial Study. b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years?
Less than Significant. The project site is located within the City of Escondido Water Department service area. The City owns, operates, and maintains approximately 44 miles of pipeline, 11 reservoirs, five pump stations, and two dams (and associated lakes). These resources are used to provide potable water to approximately 27,170 metered potable connections. As reported in the 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, the supply reliability assessment considered factors that could limit the expected quantity of current and projected water sources through 2045. The City’s water service reliability assessment and Drought Risk Assessment results indicate that no water shortages are anticipated within the next 25 years under normal, single-dry, and multiple dry years conditions.
The proposed project would have an annual water demand of approximately 996,273 gallons (both indoor use and outdoor irrigation demand) or 3.05-acre feet. As stated, the project would be consistent with zoning; thus, water demand has been incorporated into demand projections. No new or expanded entitlements would be required with implementation of the proposed project. Water supply impacts would be less than significant.
This would be consistent with the 2007 Initial Study.
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
No Impact. As stated in threshold a, the project would connect to existing sewer infrastructure located adjacent to the site. The City owns and operates the Hale Avenue Resource Recovery Facility (HARRF), which has a design flow capacity of 18 million gallons per day (MGD) and the capacity to handle instantaneous flows of up to 36 MGD. Assuming sewer demand is 60 percent of indoor water demand (462 gallons daily), the daily sewer demand would be 277 gallons per day which is well within the daily treatment capacity of the HARRF. No new or expanded entitlements for wastewater treatment would be required with implementation of the proposed project. No impact would occur. This would be consistent with the 2007 Initial Study.
d) Generate solid waste is excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local Attachment "5"
904
Item8.
Initial Study Addendum -49- City of Escondido, California infrastructures, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? No Impact. The City contracts solid waste collection services with Escondido Disposal. Waste is disposed at the Miramar Landfill in the City of San Diego. The Miramar Landfill is permitted to accept up to a maximum of 2,250 tons of waste per day. According to CalEEMod 2022.1 projections, the daily project demand would be 18 pounds or 3.32 tons annually. Project operation would not generate solid waste; and thus, would not generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals. No impact would occur. This would be consistent with the 2007 Initial Study.
e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
No Impact. The proposed project would be subject to the City’s Solid Waste and Recycling Code (Chapter 14 of the City’s Municipal Code and 2022 Calgreen section 5.408) which will require that construction debris be recycled. The project would not generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals. No impact would occur. This issue was not discussed in the 2007 Initial Study; no impact would occur under this threshold.
Based on the foregoing analysis and information, there is no evidence that the project would require a major change to the 2007 Initial Study. The project would not result in any new significant impact, nor would a substantial increase in the severity of impacts from that described in the 2007 Initial Study result. Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mit. Less than Significant Impact No Impact
14.20 WILDFIRE. If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:
a. Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
b. Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildlife risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildlife or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? c. Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
d. Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
2007 Initial Study
This issue was not discussed in the 2007 Initial Study. As stated in Section 14.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, the area will not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildfires since the site is in a suburban setting and once developed much of the property surrounding structures will be irrigated.
Proposed Project
Attachment "5"
905
Item8.
Initial Study Addendum -50- City of Escondido, California a-d) No Impact. The project site is located in an urbanized area in southern Escondido and within a Local Responsibility Area under the jurisdiction of the Escondido Fire Department. There are no wildlands located on or within proximity of the project site. No wildland fires would occur in the project area; thus, thresholds a-d would not be applicable. No impact would occur. This is consistent with the 2007 Initial Study determination.
As stated, this topical issue was not addressed in the 2007 Initial Study. However, based on the foregoing analysis and information, there is no evidence that the project would result in any significant impacts related to wildfires.
6. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM COMPLIANCE As stated above, the following mitigation measures were identified and incorporated into the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) as part of the 2007 Initial Study. The proposed project would be required to comply with applicable measures. The follow summarizes the mitigation measures and applicability to the proposed project.
Air Quality
2007 Initial Study Mitigation. Prior to construction and issuance of grading and building permits, a sitespecific analysis shall be prepared to determine equipment and methods necessary to protect adjacent properties.
Proposed Project. A project-specific air quality analysis was prepared for the project and provided as part of the discussion in Section 14.3, Air Quality. The proposed project would have no adverse effect on air quality.
This mitigation measure has been satisfied.
Biological Resources
2007 Initial Study Mitigation. To address direct impacts to non-native grasslands and coastal sage scrub, the proposed mitigation ratio is 0.25:1 through the purchase of habitat credits from an approved mitigation bank for non-native grassland. For impacts to 0.02 acres of coastal sage scrub, U.S. Fish and Wildlife and California Department of Fish and Game approval would be required.
Proposed Project. No non-native grassland or coastal sage scrub vegetation was reported in the Biological Resources Memorandum prepared by Tierra Data, Inc., July 2024. These habitat types no longer occur on the site. However, as stated, mitigation from the 2007 Initial Study pertaining to non-native grassland and coastal sage scrub remains applicable and would be enforced at the City’s discretion. 2007 Initial Study Mitigation. Impacts to native Live Oaks trees will be mitigated by relocating the four Live Oaks on-site and planting four new Live Oak trees on-site.
Proposed Project. As stated, multiple trees would be removed; however, the Project would be in compliance with City’s Municipal Code requirements for trees. Regardless, for each Live Oak tree removed, the tree would be replaced on-site and one additional tree would be planted on-site as so stated in the 2007 Initial Study.
2007 Initial Study Mitigation. A qualified biologist must inspect trees for nests prior to any brushing, grading, tree relocation or construction within close proximity to, or within the existing Oaks discussed in the Biological Report's addendum of 2/14/07. If any active nests of sensitive species are found, no impacts will be allowed until all younq have fledqed.
Proposed Project. As stated, multiple trees would be removed to accommodate the proposed project. A preconstruction nesting survey would be required consistent with the 2007 Initial Study. 2007 Initial Study Mitigation. The applicant shall provide funding to the satisfaction of the City for the fiveAttachment "5" 906
Item8.
Initial Study Addendum -51- City of Escondido, California year monitoring of the oak trees with sufficient reserve for the replacement of any dead/dying stock.
Proposed Project. The proposed project would replace Live Oak trees removed during construction at a 1:1 ratio on-site and plant one additional Live Oak tree as mitigation for impacts to Live Oak tree impacts.
Hazardous Materials
2007 Initial Study Mitigation. Monitoring well MW57 is to remain onsite and be accessible to the Chatham Brothers RP Group for monitoring purposes until officially released. Upon release, it is to be removed per Regional Board and City of Escondido standards. Alternately, if a new replacement well is installed nearby and approved by the Regional Board and Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), existing well MW57 can also then be released and removed per Regional Board and City of Escondido standards.
Proposed Project. Monitoring Well MW57 has been removed from the site as documented in the May 21, 2009, letter provided by the Chatham Site PRP Group. This mitigation measure has been satisfied.
Hydrology/Water Quality
2007 Initial Study Mitigation. No drinking water wells are to be drilled on-site and no excavations shall be allowed on-site without proper permits.
Proposed Project. Potable water would be provided by the City of Escondido Water Department. No wells would be drilled on-site. This mitigation measure is no longer applicable.
7. SPECIFIC MMRP ISSUE AREA CONDITIONS/REQUIREMENTS
The project applicant would be required to implement mitigation measures from the 2007 Initial Study that pertain to site conditions and project impacts as defined herein, as well as, current Conditions of Approval that apply to the proposed project. No new significant or adverse environmental impacts requiring mitigation were identified for the proposed project. Implementation of Condition of Approval CUL-1 at the City’s discretion, would address Native American monitoring recommendations during grading and ground disturbance activities.
8. SIGNIFICANT UNMITIGATED IMPACTS
No significant unmitigated impacts were identified in the 2007 Initial Study or the proposed project. The proposed project would not result in any additional significant impacts nor would it result in an increase in the severity of impacts from that described in the previously adopted 2007 Initial Study.
9. CERTIFICATION
Copies of the addendum, the 2007 Initial Study and Addendum, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and associated project-specific technical appendices, may be reviewed by appointment in the City of Escondido Planning Department office.
Melissa DiMarzo, Assistant Planner II
Date
Melissa DiMarzo
4/21/26
Attachment "5"
907
Item8.
Appendix A – California Emission Estimator
Model Output File
Attachment
Exhibit C
"5"
908
Item8.
Hamilton Lane Escondido Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
1 / 75
Hamilton Lane Escondido Detailed Report
Table of Contents1. Basic Project Information
1.1. Basic Project Information1.2. Land Use Types1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector
2. Emissions Summary
2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated2.3. Construction Emissions by Year, Mitigated2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated2.6. Operations Emissions by Sector, Mitigated
3. Construction Emissions Details
3.1. Demolition (2026) - Unmitigated3.2. Demolition (2026) - Mitigated3.3. Site Preparation (2026) - Unmitigated Exhibit C
Attachment "5"
909
Item8.
Hamilton Lane Escondido Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
2 / 75
3.4. Site Preparation (2026) - Mitigated3.5. Grading (2026) - Unmitigated3.6. Grading (2026) - Mitigated3.7. Building Construction (2026) - Unmitigated3.8. Building Construction (2026) - Mitigated3.9. Building Construction (2027) - Unmitigated3.10. Building Construction (2027) - Mitigated3.11. Paving (2027) - Unmitigated3.12. Paving (2027) - Mitigated3.13. Architectural Coating (2027) - Unmitigated3.14. Architectural Coating (2027) - Mitigated
4. Operations Emissions Details
4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use
4.1.1. Unmitigated4.1.2. Mitigated
4.2. Energy
4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated4.2.2. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated Exhibit C
Attachment "5"
910
Item8.
Hamilton Lane Escondido Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
3 / 75
4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated4.2.4. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated
4.3. Area Emissions by Source
4.3.1. Unmitigated4.3.2. Mitigated
4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use
4.4.1. Unmitigated4.4.2. Mitigated
4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use
4.5.1. Unmitigated4.5.2. Mitigated
4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use
4.6.1. Unmitigated4.6.2. Mitigated
4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type
4.7.1. Unmitigated4.7.2. Mitigated
4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type
Exhibit C
Attachment "5"
911
Item8.
Hamilton Lane Escondido Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
4 / 75
4.8.1. Unmitigated4.8.2. Mitigated
4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type
4.9.1. Unmitigated4.9.2. Mitigated
4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type
4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated4.10.4. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Mitigated4.10.5. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Mitigated4.10.6. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Mitigated
5. Activity Data
5.1. Construction Schedule5.2. Off-Road Equipment
5.2.1. Unmitigated5.2.2. Mitigated
5.3. Construction Vehicles
Exhibit C
Attachment "5"
912
Item8.
Hamilton Lane Escondido Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
5 / 75
5.3.1. Unmitigated5.3.2. Mitigated
5.4. Vehicles
5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies
5.5. Architectural Coatings5.6. Dust Mitigation
5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
5.7. Construction Paving5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors5.9. Operational Mobile Sources
5.9.1. Unmitigated5.9.2. Mitigated
5.10. Operational Area Sources
5.10.1. Hearths
5.10.1.1. Unmitigated5.10.1.2. Mitigated
5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
Exhibit C
Attachment "5"
913
Item8.
Hamilton Lane Escondido Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
6 / 75
5.10.3. Landscape Equipment5.10.4. Landscape Equipment - Mitigated
5.11. Operational Energy Consumption
5.11.1. Unmitigated5.11.2. Mitigated
5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption
5.12.1. Unmitigated5.12.2. Mitigated
5.13. Operational Waste Generation
5.13.1. Unmitigated5.13.2. Mitigated
5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment
5.14.1. Unmitigated5.14.2. Mitigated
5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment
5.15.1. Unmitigated5.15.2. Mitigated
5.16. Stationary Sources
Exhibit C
Attachment "5"
914
Item8.
Hamilton Lane Escondido Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
7 / 75
5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps5.16.2. Process Boilers
5.17. User Defined5.18. Vegetation
5.18.1. Land Use Change
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated5.18.1.2. Mitigated
5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated5.18.1.2. Mitigated
5.18.2. Sequestration
5.18.2.1. Unmitigated5.18.2.2. Mitigated
6. Climate Risk Detailed Report
6.1. Climate Risk Summary6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures Exhibit C
Attachment "5"
915
Item8.
Hamilton Lane Escondido Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
8 / 75
7. Health and Equity Details
7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores7.4. Health & Equity Measures7.5. Evaluation Scorecard7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures
8. User Changes to Default Data
Exhibit C
Attachment "5"
916
Item8.
Hamilton Lane Escondido Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
9 / 75
1. Basic Project Information1.1. Basic Project Information Data Field ValueProject Name Hamilton Lane EscondidoConstruction Start Date 3/2/2026Operational Year 2026Lead Agency —Land Use Scale Project/siteAnalysis Level for Defaults CountyWindspeed (m/s) 2.20Precipitation (days) 26.6Location 33.089247938234934, -117.08811878755569County San DiegoCity EscondidoAir District San Diego County APCDAir Basin San DiegoTAZ 6294EDFZ 12Electric Utility San Diego Gas & ElectricGas Utility San Diego Gas & ElectricApp Version 2022.1.1.29
1.2. Land Use Types
Land Use Subtype Size Unit Lot Acreage Building Area (sq ft) Landscape Area (sq ft)
Special LandscapeArea (sq ft)
Population Description
Single FamilyHousing
5.00 Dwelling Unit 1.62 9,750 58,564 — 14.0 —
Exhibit C
Attachment "5"
917
Item8.
Hamilton Lane Escondido Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
10 / 75
1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector Sector # Measure TitleConstruction C-2* Limit Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicle IdlingWater W-7 Adopt a Water Conservation Strategy * Qualitative or supporting measure. Emission reductions not included in the mitigated emissions results.2. Emissions Summary2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against ThresholdsCriteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2eDaily,Summer(Max) —————————————————
Unmit. 1.46 12.9 14.5 0.02 0.58 2.85 3.43 0.53 1.36 1.89 — 2,548 2,548 0.10 0.02 0.33 2,558Mit. 1.46 12.9 14.5 0.02 0.58 2.85 3.43 0.53 1.36 1.89 — 2,548 2,548 0.10 0.02 0.33 2,558%Reduced —————————————————
Daily,Winter(Max)
—————————————————
Unmit. 6.22 13.0 15.1 0.02 0.51 2.51 3.01 0.47 1.19 1.65 — 2,604 2,604 0.11 0.02 0.01 2,614Mit. 6.22 13.0 15.1 0.02 0.51 2.51 3.01 0.47 1.19 1.65 — 2,604 2,604 0.11 0.02 0.01 2,614%Reduced —————————————————
AverageDaily(Max)
—————————————————
Unmit. 0.64 5.40 6.29 0.01 0.19 0.06 0.25 0.17 0.03 0.20 — 1,138 1,138 0.05 0.01 0.03 1,143Mit. 0.64 5.40 6.29 0.01 0.19 0.06 0.25 0.17 0.03 0.20 — 1,138 1,138 0.05 0.01 0.03 1,143 Exhibit C
Attachment "5"
918
Item8.
Hamilton Lane Escondido Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
11 / 75
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — %
Reduced
Annual(Max)
—————————————————
Unmit. 0.12 0.99 1.15 < 0.005 0.03 0.01 0.05 0.03 < 0.005 0.04 — 188 188 0.01 < 0.005 0.01 189Mit. 0.12 0.99 1.15 < 0.005 0.03 0.01 0.05 0.03 < 0.005 0.04 — 188 188 0.01 < 0.005 0.01 189%Reduced —————————————————
2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, UnmitigatedCriteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Year ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2eDaily -Summer(Max) —————————————————
2026 1.46 12.9 14.5 0.02 0.58 2.85 3.43 0.53 1.36 1.89 — 2,548 2,548 0.10 0.02 0.33 2,558Daily -Winter(Max) —————————————————
2026 1.44 13.0 15.1 0.02 0.51 2.51 3.01 0.47 1.19 1.65 — 2,604 2,604 0.11 0.02 0.01 2,6142027 6.22 8.28 9.98 0.02 0.26 0.11 0.28 0.24 0.02 0.25 — 1,829 1,829 0.07 0.02 0.01 1,836AverageDaily —————————————————
2026 0.64 5.40 6.29 0.01 0.19 0.06 0.25 0.17 0.03 0.20 — 1,138 1,138 0.05 0.01 0.03 1,1432027 0.21 0.37 0.49 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 0.01 — 84.0 84.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 84.4Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —2026 0.12 0.99 1.15 < 0.005 0.03 0.01 0.05 0.03 < 0.005 0.04 — 188 188 0.01 < 0.005 0.01 1892027 0.04 0.07 0.09 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 13.9 13.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 14.0
2.3. Construction Emissions by Year, MitigatedCriteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Exhibit C
Attachment "5"
919
Item8.
Hamilton Lane Escondido Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
12 / 75
Year ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily -Summer(Max)
—————————————————
2026 1.46 12.9 14.5 0.02 0.58 2.85 3.43 0.53 1.36 1.89 — 2,548 2,548 0.10 0.02 0.33 2,558Daily -Winter(Max) —————————————————
2026 1.44 13.0 15.1 0.02 0.51 2.51 3.01 0.47 1.19 1.65 — 2,604 2,604 0.11 0.02 0.01 2,6142027 6.22 8.28 9.98 0.02 0.26 0.11 0.28 0.24 0.02 0.25 — 1,829 1,829 0.07 0.02 0.01 1,836AverageDaily —————————————————
2026 0.64 5.40 6.29 0.01 0.19 0.06 0.25 0.17 0.03 0.20 — 1,138 1,138 0.05 0.01 0.03 1,1432027 0.21 0.37 0.49 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 0.01 — 84.0 84.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 84.4Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —2026 0.12 0.99 1.15 < 0.005 0.03 0.01 0.05 0.03 < 0.005 0.04 — 188 188 0.01 < 0.005 0.01 1892027 0.04 0.07 0.09 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 13.9 13.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 14.0
2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against ThresholdsCriteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2eDaily,Summer(Max) —————————————————
Unmit. 0.45 0.18 1.79 < 0.005 0.01 0.32 0.32 0.01 0.08 0.09 2.13 476 479 0.24 0.02 1.31 490Mit. 0.45 0.18 1.79 < 0.005 0.01 0.32 0.32 0.01 0.08 0.09 2.06 474 476 0.23 0.01 1.31 488%Reduced — — — — — — — — — — 3% < 0.5% < 0.5% 3% — — 1%
Daily,Winter(Max)
—————————————————
Unmit. 0.42 0.19 1.41 < 0.005 0.01 0.32 0.32 0.01 0.08 0.09 2.13 459 461 0.24 0.02 0.10 472 Exhibit C
Attachment "5"
920
Item8.
Hamilton Lane Escondido Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
13 / 75
Mit. 0.42 0.19 1.41 < 0.005 0.01 0.32 0.32 0.01 0.08 0.09 2.06 457 459 0.23 0.02 0.10 470 %Reduced
— — — — — — — — — — 3% < 0.5% < 0.5% 3% — — 1%
AverageDaily(Max)
—————————————————
Unmit. 0.43 0.19 1.52 < 0.005 0.01 0.30 0.31 0.01 0.08 0.08 2.13 454 456 0.24 0.02 0.59 467Mit. 0.43 0.19 1.52 < 0.005 0.01 0.30 0.31 0.01 0.08 0.08 2.06 452 454 0.23 0.02 0.59 465%Reduced — — — — — — — — — — 3% < 0.5% 1% 3% — — 1%
Annual(Max)
—————————————————
Unmit. 0.08 0.03 0.28 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.06 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 0.35 75.2 75.5 0.04 < 0.005 0.10 77.4Mit. 0.08 0.03 0.28 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.06 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 0.34 74.8 75.2 0.04 < 0.005 0.10 77.0%Reduced — — — — — — — — — — 3% < 0.5% 1% 3% 1% — 1%
2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, UnmitigatedCriteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Sector ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2eDaily,Summer(Max) —————————————————
Mobile 0.20 0.14 1.49 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.32 0.32 < 0.005 0.08 0.08 — 369 369 0.02 0.01 1.24 375Area 0.25 < 0.005 0.28 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 0.76 0.76 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.76Energy < 0.005 0.04 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 95.2 95.2 0.01 < 0.005 — 95.5Water — — — — — — — — — — 0.34 11.1 11.4 0.04 < 0.005 — 12.6Waste — — — — — — — — — — 1.79 0.00 1.79 0.18 0.00 — 6.26Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.07 0.07Total 0.45 0.18 1.79 < 0.005 0.01 0.32 0.32 0.01 0.08 0.09 2.13 476 479 0.24 0.02 1.31 490 Exhibit C
Attachment "5"
921
Item8.
Hamilton Lane Escondido Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
14 / 75
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Daily,
Winter(Max)
Mobile 0.19 0.16 1.40 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.32 0.32 < 0.005 0.08 0.08 — 353 353 0.02 0.01 0.03 358Area 0.23 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Energy < 0.005 0.04 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 95.2 95.2 0.01 < 0.005 — 95.5Water — — — — — — — — — — 0.34 11.1 11.4 0.04 < 0.005 — 12.6Waste — — — — — — — — — — 1.79 0.00 1.79 0.18 0.00 — 6.26Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.07 0.07Total 0.42 0.19 1.41 < 0.005 0.01 0.32 0.32 0.01 0.08 0.09 2.13 459 461 0.24 0.02 0.10 472AverageDaily —————————————————
Mobile 0.19 0.15 1.37 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.30 0.31 < 0.005 0.08 0.08 — 347 347 0.02 0.01 0.52 353Area 0.24 < 0.005 0.14 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 0.37 0.37 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.38Energy < 0.005 0.04 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 95.2 95.2 0.01 < 0.005 — 95.5Water — — — — — — — — — — 0.34 11.1 11.4 0.04 < 0.005 — 12.6Waste — — — — — — — — — — 1.79 0.00 1.79 0.18 0.00 — 6.26Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.07 0.07Total 0.43 0.19 1.52 < 0.005 0.01 0.30 0.31 0.01 0.08 0.08 2.13 454 456 0.24 0.02 0.59 467Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Mobile 0.03 0.03 0.25 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.06 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 57.5 57.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.09 58.4Area 0.04 < 0.005 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 0.06 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.06Energy < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 15.8 15.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 15.8Water — — — — — — — — — — 0.06 1.84 1.89 0.01 < 0.005 — 2.08Waste — — — — — — — — — — 0.30 0.00 0.30 0.03 0.00 — 1.04Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.01 0.01Total 0.08 0.03 0.28 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.06 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 0.35 75.2 75.5 0.04 < 0.005 0.10 77.4
2.6. Operations Emissions by Sector, Mitigated
Exhibit C
Attachment "5"
922
Item8.
Hamilton Lane Escondido Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
15 / 75
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Sector ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2eDaily,Summer(Max) —————————————————
Mobile 0.20 0.14 1.49 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.32 0.32 < 0.005 0.08 0.08 — 369 369 0.02 0.01 1.24 375Area 0.25 < 0.005 0.28 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 0.76 0.76 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.76Energy < 0.005 0.04 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 95.2 95.2 0.01 < 0.005 — 95.5Water — — — — — — — — — — 0.27 8.87 9.14 0.03 < 0.005 — 10.1Waste — — — — — — — — — — 1.79 0.00 1.79 0.18 0.00 — 6.26Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.07 0.07Total 0.45 0.18 1.79 < 0.005 0.01 0.32 0.32 0.01 0.08 0.09 2.06 474 476 0.23 0.01 1.31 488Daily,Winter(Max) —————————————————
Mobile 0.19 0.16 1.40 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.32 0.32 < 0.005 0.08 0.08 — 353 353 0.02 0.01 0.03 358Area 0.23 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Energy < 0.005 0.04 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 95.2 95.2 0.01 < 0.005 — 95.5Water — — — — — — — — — — 0.27 8.87 9.14 0.03 < 0.005 — 10.1Waste — — — — — — — — — — 1.79 0.00 1.79 0.18 0.00 — 6.26Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.07 0.07Total 0.42 0.19 1.41 < 0.005 0.01 0.32 0.32 0.01 0.08 0.09 2.06 457 459 0.23 0.02 0.10 470AverageDaily —————————————————
Mobile 0.19 0.15 1.37 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.30 0.31 < 0.005 0.08 0.08 — 347 347 0.02 0.01 0.52 353Area 0.24 < 0.005 0.14 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 0.37 0.37 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.38Energy < 0.005 0.04 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 95.2 95.2 0.01 < 0.005 — 95.5Water — — — — — — — — — — 0.27 8.87 9.14 0.03 < 0.005 — 10.1Waste — — — — — — — — — — 1.79 0.00 1.79 0.18 0.00 — 6.26Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.07 0.07 Exhibit C
Attachment "5"
923
Item8.
Hamilton Lane Escondido Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
16 / 75
Total 0.43 0.19 1.52 < 0.005 0.01 0.30 0.31 0.01 0.08 0.08 2.06 452 454 0.23 0.02 0.59 465 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Mobile 0.03 0.03 0.25 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.06 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 57.5 57.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.09 58.4Area 0.04 < 0.005 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 0.06 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.06Energy < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 15.8 15.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 15.8Water — — — — — — — — — — 0.04 1.47 1.51 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.67Waste — — — — — — — — — — 0.30 0.00 0.30 0.03 0.00 — 1.04Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.01 0.01Total 0.08 0.03 0.28 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.06 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 0.34 74.8 75.2 0.04 < 0.005 0.10 77.0
3. Construction Emissions Details3.1. Demolition (2026) - UnmitigatedCriteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2eOnsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Daily,Summer(Max) —————————————————
Daily,Winter(Max)
—————————————————
Off-RoadEquipment
1.39 12.9 14.6 0.02 0.51 — 0.51 0.47 — 0.47 — 2,494 2,494 0.10 0.02 — 2,503 Demolition
— — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — —
Onsitetruck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 AverageDaily
—————————————————
Exhibit C
Attachment "5"
924
Item8.
Hamilton Lane Escondido Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
17 / 75
137 — < 0.005 0.01 137 137 — 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 < 0.005 0.80 0.71 0.08 Off-Road Equipment
Demolition
— — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — —
Onsitetruck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Off-RoadEquipment
0.01 0.13 0.15 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 22.6 22.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 22.7 Demolition
— — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — —
Onsitetruck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Daily,Summer(Max) —————————————————
Daily,Winter(Max)
—————————————————
Worker 0.04 0.04 0.48 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 110 110 0.01 < 0.005 0.01 111Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00AverageDaily —————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.07 6.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 6.16Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.00 1.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.02Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Exhibit C
Attachment "5"
925
Item8.
Hamilton Lane Escondido Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
18 / 75
3.2. Demolition (2026) - MitigatedCriteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2eOnsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Daily,Summer(Max) —————————————————
Daily,Winter(Max)
—————————————————
Off-RoadEquipment
1.39 12.9 14.6 0.02 0.51 — 0.51 0.47 — 0.47 — 2,494 2,494 0.10 0.02 — 2,503 Demolition
— — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — —
Onsitetruck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 AverageDaily
—————————————————
Off-RoadEquipment
0.08 0.71 0.80 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 137 137 0.01 < 0.005 — 137 Demolition
— — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — —
Onsitetruck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Off-RoadEquipment
0.01 0.13 0.15 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 22.6 22.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 22.7 Demolition
— — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — —
Onsitetruck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Exhibit C
Attachment "5"
926
Item8.
Hamilton Lane Escondido Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
19 / 75
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Daily,
Summer(Max)
Daily,Winter(Max)
—————————————————
Worker 0.04 0.04 0.48 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 110 110 0.01 < 0.005 0.01 111Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00AverageDaily —————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.07 6.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 6.16Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.00 1.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.02Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.3. Site Preparation (2026) - UnmitigatedCriteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2eOnsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Daily,Summer(Max) —————————————————
Off-RoadEquipment
1.24 11.0 11.7 0.02 0.51 — 0.51 0.47 — 0.47 — 2,065 2,065 0.08 0.02 — 2,072 DustFromMaterialMovement
— — — — — 2.44 2.44 — 1.17 1.17 — — — — — — —
Exhibit C
Attachment "5"
927
Item8.
Hamilton Lane Escondido Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
20 / 75
Onsitetruck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,Winter(Max)
—————————————————
Off-RoadEquipment
1.24 11.0 11.7 0.02 0.51 — 0.51 0.47 — 0.47 — 2,065 2,065 0.08 0.02 — 2,072 DustFromMaterialMovement
— — — — — 2.44 2.44 — 1.17 1.17 — — — — — — —
Onsitetruck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 AverageDaily
—————————————————
Off-RoadEquipment
0.01 0.06 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 11.3 11.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 11.4 DustFromMaterialMovement
— — — — — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — — — — — — —
Onsitetruck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Off-RoadEquipment < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 1.87 1.87 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.88 DustFromMaterialMovement
— — — — — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — Onsitetruck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Daily,Summer(Max) —————————————————
Exhibit C
Attachment "5"
928
Item8.
Hamilton Lane Escondido Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
21 / 75
Worker 0.03 0.02 0.32 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 69.7 69.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.24 70.8 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Daily,Winter(Max) —————————————————
Worker 0.03 0.02 0.29 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 65.8 65.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 66.7Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00AverageDaily —————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.36 0.36 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.37Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.06 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.4. Site Preparation (2026) - MitigatedCriteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2eOnsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Daily,Summer(Max) —————————————————
Off-RoadEquipment
1.24 11.0 11.7 0.02 0.51 — 0.51 0.47 — 0.47 — 2,065 2,065 0.08 0.02 — 2,072 Exhibit C
Attachment "5"
929
Item8.
Hamilton Lane Escondido Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
22 / 75
— — — — — — — 1.17 1.17 — 2.44 2.44 — — — — — Dust
FromMaterialMovement
Onsitetruck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,Winter(Max)
—————————————————
Off-RoadEquipment
1.24 11.0 11.7 0.02 0.51 — 0.51 0.47 — 0.47 — 2,065 2,065 0.08 0.02 — 2,072 DustFromMaterialMovement
— — — — — 2.44 2.44 — 1.17 1.17 — — — — — — —
Onsitetruck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 AverageDaily
—————————————————
Off-RoadEquipment
0.01 0.06 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 11.3 11.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 11.4 DustFromMaterialMovement
— — — — — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — — — — — — —
Onsitetruck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Off-RoadEquipment < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 1.87 1.87 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.88 DustFromMaterialMovement
— — — — — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — Onsitetruck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Exhibit C
Attachment "5"
930
Item8.
Hamilton Lane Escondido Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
23 / 75
Daily,Summer(Max)
—————————————————
Worker 0.03 0.02 0.32 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 69.7 69.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.24 70.8Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Daily,Winter(Max) —————————————————
Worker 0.03 0.02 0.29 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 65.8 65.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 66.7Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00AverageDaily —————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.36 0.36 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.37Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.06 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.5. Grading (2026) - UnmitigatedCriteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2eOnsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Daily,Summer(Max) —————————————————
Off-RoadEquipment
1.42 12.9 14.0 0.02 0.58 — 0.58 0.53 — 0.53 — 2,455 2,455 0.10 0.02 — 2,463 Exhibit C
Attachment "5"
931
Item8.
Hamilton Lane Escondido Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
24 / 75
DustFromMaterialMovement
— — — — — 2.76 2.76 — 1.34 1.34 — — — — — — —
Onsitetruck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,Winter(Max)
—————————————————
AverageDaily
—————————————————
Off-RoadEquipment
0.02 0.14 0.15 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 26.9 26.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 27.0 DustFromMaterialMovement
— — — — — 0.03 0.03 — 0.01 0.01 — — — — — — —
Onsitetruck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Off-RoadEquipment < 0.005 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 4.45 4.45 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.47 DustFromMaterialMovement
— — — — — 0.01 0.01 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — —
Onsitetruck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Daily,Summer(Max) —————————————————
Worker 0.04 0.03 0.43 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 93.0 93.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.33 94.4Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Exhibit C
Attachment "5"
932
Item8.
Hamilton Lane Escondido Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
25 / 75
Daily,Winter(Max)
—————————————————
AverageDaily
—————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.97 0.97 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.98Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.16 0.16 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.16Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.6. Grading (2026) - MitigatedCriteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2eOnsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Daily,Summer(Max) —————————————————
Off-RoadEquipment
1.42 12.9 14.0 0.02 0.58 — 0.58 0.53 — 0.53 — 2,455 2,455 0.10 0.02 — 2,463 DustFromMaterialMovement
— — — — — 2.76 2.76 — 1.34 1.34 — — — — — — —
Onsitetruck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,Winter(Max)
—————————————————
AverageDaily
—————————————————
Exhibit C
Attachment "5"
933
Item8.
Hamilton Lane Escondido Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
26 / 75
Off-RoadEquipment
0.02 0.14 0.15 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 26.9 26.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 27.0 DustFromMaterialMovement
— — — — — 0.03 0.03 — 0.01 0.01 — — — — — — —
Onsitetruck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Off-RoadEquipment < 0.005 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 4.45 4.45 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.47 DustFromMaterialMovement
— — — — — 0.01 0.01 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — —
Onsitetruck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Daily,Summer(Max) —————————————————
Worker 0.04 0.03 0.43 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 93.0 93.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.33 94.4Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Daily,Winter(Max) —————————————————
AverageDaily
—————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.97 0.97 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.98Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.16 0.16 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.16 Exhibit C
Attachment "5"
934
Item8.
Hamilton Lane Escondido Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
27 / 75
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.7. Building Construction (2026) - UnmitigatedCriteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2eOnsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Daily,Summer(Max) —————————————————
Off-RoadEquipment
1.01 8.57 9.96 0.02 0.29 — 0.29 0.27 — 0.27 — 1,801 1,801 0.07 0.01 — 1,807 Onsitetruck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,Winter(Max)
—————————————————
Off-RoadEquipment
1.01 8.57 9.96 0.02 0.29 — 0.29 0.27 — 0.27 — 1,801 1,801 0.07 0.01 — 1,807 Onsitetruck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 AverageDaily
—————————————————
Off-RoadEquipment
0.53 4.48 5.20 0.01 0.15 — 0.15 0.14 — 0.14 — 941 941 0.04 0.01 — 944 Onsitetruck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Off-RoadEquipment
0.10 0.82 0.95 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 156 156 0.01 < 0.005 — 156 Onsitetruck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Exhibit C
Attachment "5"
935
Item8.
Hamilton Lane Escondido Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
28 / 75
Daily,Summer(Max)
—————————————————
Worker 0.01 < 0.005 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 16.7 16.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 17.0Vendor < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 13.1 13.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 13.7Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Daily,Winter(Max) —————————————————
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 15.8 15.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 16.0Vendor < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 13.1 13.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 13.7Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00AverageDaily —————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 8.33 8.33 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 8.45Vendor < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.86 6.86 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 7.17Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.38 1.38 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.40Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.14 1.14 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.19Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.8. Building Construction (2026) - MitigatedCriteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2eOnsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Daily,Summer(Max) —————————————————
Off-RoadEquipment
1.01 8.57 9.96 0.02 0.29 — 0.29 0.27 — 0.27 — 1,801 1,801 0.07 0.01 — 1,807 Exhibit C
Attachment "5"
936
Item8.
Hamilton Lane Escondido Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
29 / 75
Onsitetruck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,Winter(Max)
—————————————————
Off-RoadEquipment
1.01 8.57 9.96 0.02 0.29 — 0.29 0.27 — 0.27 — 1,801 1,801 0.07 0.01 — 1,807 Onsitetruck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 AverageDaily
—————————————————
Off-RoadEquipment
0.53 4.48 5.20 0.01 0.15 — 0.15 0.14 — 0.14 — 941 941 0.04 0.01 — 944 Onsitetruck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Off-RoadEquipment
0.10 0.82 0.95 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 156 156 0.01 < 0.005 — 156 Onsitetruck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Daily,Summer(Max) —————————————————
Worker 0.01 < 0.005 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 16.7 16.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 17.0Vendor < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 13.1 13.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 13.7Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Daily,Winter(Max) —————————————————
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 15.8 15.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 16.0Vendor < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 13.1 13.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 13.7Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Exhibit C
Attachment "5"
937
Item8.
Hamilton Lane Escondido Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
30 / 75
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Average
Daily
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 8.33 8.33 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 8.45Vendor < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.86 6.86 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 7.17Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.38 1.38 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.40Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.14 1.14 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.19Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.9. Building Construction (2027) - UnmitigatedCriteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2eOnsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Daily,Summer(Max) —————————————————
Daily,Winter(Max)
—————————————————
Off-RoadEquipment
0.97 8.25 9.91 0.02 0.26 — 0.26 0.24 — 0.24 — 1,801 1,801 0.07 0.01 — 1,807 Onsitetruck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 AverageDaily
—————————————————
Off-RoadEquipment
0.03 0.23 0.27 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 49.3 49.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 49.5 Onsitetruck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Exhibit C
Attachment "5"
938
Item8.
Hamilton Lane Escondido Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
31 / 75
8.20 — < 0.005 < 0.005 8.17 8.17 — < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.04 < 0.005 Off-Road Equipment
Onsitetruck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Daily,Summer(Max) —————————————————
Daily,Winter(Max)
—————————————————
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 15.5 15.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 15.7Vendor < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 12.9 12.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 13.4Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00AverageDaily —————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.43 0.43 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.44Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.35 0.35 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.37Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.07 0.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.06 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.10. Building Construction (2027) - MitigatedCriteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2eOnsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Daily,Summer(Max) —————————————————
Exhibit C
Attachment "5"
939
Item8.
Hamilton Lane Escondido Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
32 / 75
Daily,Winter(Max)
—————————————————
Off-RoadEquipment
0.97 8.25 9.91 0.02 0.26 — 0.26 0.24 — 0.24 — 1,801 1,801 0.07 0.01 — 1,807 Onsitetruck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 AverageDaily
—————————————————
Off-RoadEquipment
0.03 0.23 0.27 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 49.3 49.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 49.5 Onsitetruck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Off-RoadEquipment < 0.005 0.04 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 8.17 8.17 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 8.20 Onsitetruck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Daily,Summer(Max) —————————————————
Daily,Winter(Max)
—————————————————
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 15.5 15.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 15.7Vendor < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 12.9 12.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 13.4Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00AverageDaily —————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.43 0.43 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.44Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.35 0.35 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.37Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Exhibit C
Attachment "5"
940
Item8.
Hamilton Lane Escondido Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
33 / 75
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.07 0.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.06 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.11. Paving (2027) - UnmitigatedCriteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2eOnsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Daily,Summer(Max) —————————————————
Daily,Winter(Max)
—————————————————
Off-RoadEquipment
0.46 4.30 6.49 0.01 0.17 — 0.17 0.16 — 0.16 — 992 992 0.04 0.01 — 995 Paving 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Onsitetruck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 AverageDaily
—————————————————
Off-RoadEquipment
0.01 0.12 0.18 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 27.2 27.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 27.3 Paving 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Onsitetruck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Off-RoadEquipment < 0.005 0.02 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 4.50 4.50 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.51 Paving 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Onsitetruck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Exhibit C
Attachment "5"
941
Item8.
Hamilton Lane Escondido Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
34 / 75
Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,Summer(Max)
—————————————————
Daily,Winter(Max)
—————————————————
Worker 0.04 0.04 0.45 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 108 108 0.01 < 0.005 0.01 109Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00AverageDaily —————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.98 2.98 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 3.02Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.49 0.49 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.50Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.12. Paving (2027) - MitigatedCriteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2eOnsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Daily,Summer(Max) —————————————————
Daily,Winter(Max)
—————————————————
Off-RoadEquipment
0.46 4.30 6.49 0.01 0.17 — 0.17 0.16 — 0.16 — 992 992 0.04 0.01 — 995 Exhibit C
Attachment "5"
942
Item8.
Hamilton Lane Escondido Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
35 / 75
Paving 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsitetruck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 AverageDaily
—————————————————
Off-RoadEquipment
0.01 0.12 0.18 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 27.2 27.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 27.3 Paving 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Onsitetruck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Off-RoadEquipment < 0.005 0.02 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 4.50 4.50 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.51 Paving 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Onsitetruck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Daily,Summer(Max) —————————————————
Daily,Winter(Max)
—————————————————
Worker 0.04 0.04 0.45 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 108 108 0.01 < 0.005 0.01 109Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00AverageDaily —————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.98 2.98 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 3.02Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Exhibit C
Attachment "5"
943
Item8.
Hamilton Lane Escondido Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
36 / 75
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.49 0.49 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.50 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.13. Architectural Coating (2027) - UnmitigatedCriteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2eOnsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Daily,Summer(Max) —————————————————
Daily,Winter(Max)
—————————————————
Off-RoadEquipment
0.11 0.83 1.13 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 ArchitecturalCoatings
6.10 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsitetruck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 AverageDaily
—————————————————
Off-RoadEquipment
< 0.005 0.02 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 3.66 3.66 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.67 ArchitecturalCoatings
0.17 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsitetruck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Off-RoadEquipment < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 0.61 0.61 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.61 Exhibit C
Attachment "5"
944
Item8.
Hamilton Lane Escondido Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
37 / 75
ArchitectCoatings
0.03 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsitetruck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Daily,Summer(Max) —————————————————
Daily,Winter(Max)
—————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.11 3.11 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 3.15Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00AverageDaily —————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.09 0.09 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.09Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.14. Architectural Coating (2027) - MitigatedCriteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2eOnsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Daily,Summer(Max) —————————————————
Exhibit C
Attachment "5"
945
Item8.
Hamilton Lane Escondido Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
38 / 75
Daily,Winter(Max)
—————————————————
Off-RoadEquipment
0.11 0.83 1.13 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 ArchitecturalCoatings
6.10 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsitetruck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 AverageDaily
—————————————————
Off-RoadEquipment
< 0.005 0.02 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 3.66 3.66 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.67 ArchitecturalCoatings
0.17 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsitetruck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Off-RoadEquipment < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 0.61 0.61 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.61 ArchitecturalCoatings
0.03 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsitetruck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Daily,Summer(Max) —————————————————
Daily,Winter(Max)
—————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.11 3.11 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 3.15 Exhibit C
Attachment "5"
946
Item8.
Hamilton Lane Escondido Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
39 / 75
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00AverageDaily —————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.09 0.09 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.09Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
4. Operations Emissions Details4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use4.1.1. UnmitigatedCriteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) LandUse
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,Summer(Max)
—————————————————
SingleFamilyHousing
0.20 0.14 1.49 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.32 0.32 < 0.005 0.08 0.08 — 369 369 0.02 0.01 1.24 375 Total 0.20 0.14 1.49 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.32 0.32 < 0.005 0.08 0.08 — 369 369 0.02 0.01 1.24 375Daily,Winter(Max) —————————————————
Exhibit C
Attachment "5"
947
Item8.
Hamilton Lane Escondido Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
40 / 75
358 0.03 0.01 0.02 353 353 — 0.08 0.08 < 0.005 0.32 0.32 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.40 0.16 0.19 Single FamilyHousing
Total 0.19 0.16 1.40 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.32 0.32 < 0.005 0.08 0.08 — 353 353 0.02 0.01 0.03 358Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —SingleFamilyHousing
0.03 0.03 0.25 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.06 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 57.5 57.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.09 58.4 Total 0.03 0.03 0.25 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.06 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 57.5 57.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.09 58.4
4.1.2. MitigatedCriteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) LandUse
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,Summer(Max)
—————————————————
SingleFamilyHousing
0.20 0.14 1.49 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.32 0.32 < 0.005 0.08 0.08 — 369 369 0.02 0.01 1.24 375 Total 0.20 0.14 1.49 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.32 0.32 < 0.005 0.08 0.08 — 369 369 0.02 0.01 1.24 375Daily,Winter(Max) —————————————————
SingleFamilyHousing
0.19 0.16 1.40 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.32 0.32 < 0.005 0.08 0.08 — 353 353 0.02 0.01 0.03 358 Total 0.19 0.16 1.40 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.32 0.32 < 0.005 0.08 0.08 — 353 353 0.02 0.01 0.03 358Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —SingleFamilyHousing
0.03 0.03 0.25 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.06 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 57.5 57.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.09 58.4 Total 0.03 0.03 0.25 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.06 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 57.5 57.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.09 58.4 Exhibit C
Attachment "5"
948
Item8.
Hamilton Lane Escondido Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
41 / 75
4.2. Energy4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - UnmitigatedCriteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) LandUse
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,Summer(Max)
—————————————————
SingleFamilyHousing
— — — — — — — — — — — 49.5 49.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 49.7
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 49.5 49.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 49.7Daily,Winter(Max) —————————————————
SingleFamilyHousing
— — — — — — — — — — — 49.5 49.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 49.7
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 49.5 49.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 49.7Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —SingleFamilyHousing — — — — — — — — — — — 8.20 8.20 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 8.23
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 8.20 8.20 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 8.23
4.2.2. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - MitigatedCriteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) LandUse
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,Summer(Max)
—————————————————
Exhibit C
Attachment "5"
949
Item8.
Hamilton Lane Escondido Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
42 / 75
SingleFamilyHousing
— — — — — — — — — — — 49.5 49.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 49.7
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 49.5 49.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 49.7Daily,Winter(Max) —————————————————
SingleFamilyHousing
— — — — — — — — — — — 49.5 49.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 49.7
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 49.5 49.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 49.7Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —SingleFamilyHousing — — — — — — — — — — — 8.20 8.20 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 8.23
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 8.20 8.20 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 8.23
4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - UnmitigatedCriteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) LandUse
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,Summer(Max)
—————————————————
SingleFamilyHousing
< 0.005 0.04 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 45.7 45.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 45.8 Total < 0.005 0.04 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 45.7 45.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 45.8Daily,Winter(Max) —————————————————
SingleFamilyHousing
< 0.005 0.04 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 45.7 45.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 45.8 Exhibit C
Attachment "5"
950
Item8.
Hamilton Lane Escondido Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
43 / 75
Total < 0.005 0.04 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 45.7 45.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 45.8 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —SingleFamilyHousing < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 7.57 7.57 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 7.59 Total < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 7.57 7.57 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 7.59
4.2.4. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - MitigatedCriteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) LandUse
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,Summer(Max)
—————————————————
SingleFamilyHousing
< 0.005 0.04 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 45.7 45.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 45.8 Total < 0.005 0.04 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 45.7 45.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 45.8Daily,Winter(Max) —————————————————
SingleFamilyHousing
< 0.005 0.04 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 45.7 45.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 45.8 Total < 0.005 0.04 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 45.7 45.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 45.8Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —SingleFamilyHousing < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 7.57 7.57 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 7.59 Total < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 7.57 7.57 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 7.59
4.3. Area Emissions by Source
Exhibit C
Attachment "5"
951
Item8.
Hamilton Lane Escondido Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
44 / 75
4.3.1. UnmitigatedCriteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Source ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2eDaily,Summer(Max) —————————————————
ConsumerProducts
0.21 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
ArchitecturalCoatings
0.02 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
LandscapeEquipment
0.03 < 0.005 0.28 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 0.76 0.76 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.76 Total 0.25 < 0.005 0.28 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 0.76 0.76 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.76Daily,Winter(Max) —————————————————
ConsumerProducts
0.21 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
ArchitecturalCoatings
0.02 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total 0.23 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —ConsumerProducts
0.04 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
ArchitecturalCoatings
< 0.005 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Exhibit C
Attachment "5"
952
Item8.
Hamilton Lane Escondido Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
45 / 75
0.06 — < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.06 — < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 Landsca pe
Total 0.04 < 0.005 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 0.06 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.06
4.3.2. MitigatedCriteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Source ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2eDaily,Summer(Max) —————————————————
ConsumerProducts
0.21 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
ArchitecturalCoatings
0.02 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
LandscapeEquipment
0.03 < 0.005 0.28 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 0.76 0.76 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.76 Total 0.25 < 0.005 0.28 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 0.76 0.76 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.76Daily,Winter(Max) —————————————————
ConsumerProducts
0.21 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
ArchitecturalCoatings
0.02 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total 0.23 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —ConsumerProducts
0.04 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Exhibit C
Attachment "5"
953
Item8.
Hamilton Lane Escondido Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
46 / 75
ArchitectCoatings
< 0.005 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
LandscapeEquipment
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 0.06 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.06 Total 0.04 < 0.005 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 0.06 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.06
4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use4.4.1. UnmitigatedCriteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) LandUse
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,Summer(Max)
—————————————————
SingleFamilyHousing
— — — — — — — — — — 0.34 11.1 11.4 0.04 < 0.005 — 12.6
Total — — — — — — — — — — 0.34 11.1 11.4 0.04 < 0.005 — 12.6Daily,Winter(Max) —————————————————
SingleFamilyHousing
— — — — — — — — — — 0.34 11.1 11.4 0.04 < 0.005 — 12.6
Total — — — — — — — — — — 0.34 11.1 11.4 0.04 < 0.005 — 12.6Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —SingleFamilyHousing — — — — — — — — — — 0.06 1.84 1.89 0.01 < 0.005 — 2.08
Total — — — — — — — — — — 0.06 1.84 1.89 0.01 < 0.005 — 2.08 Exhibit C
Attachment "5"
954
Item8.
Hamilton Lane Escondido Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
47 / 75
4.4.2. MitigatedCriteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) LandUse
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,Summer(Max)
—————————————————
SingleFamilyHousing
— — — — — — — — — — 0.27 8.87 9.14 0.03 < 0.005 — 10.1
Total — — — — — — — — — — 0.27 8.87 9.14 0.03 < 0.005 — 10.1Daily,Winter(Max) —————————————————
SingleFamilyHousing
— — — — — — — — — — 0.27 8.87 9.14 0.03 < 0.005 — 10.1
Total — — — — — — — — — — 0.27 8.87 9.14 0.03 < 0.005 — 10.1Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —SingleFamilyHousing — — — — — — — — — — 0.04 1.47 1.51 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.67 Total — — — — — — — — — — 0.04 1.47 1.51 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.67
4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use4.5.1. UnmitigatedCriteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) LandUse
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,Summer(Max)
—————————————————
Exhibit C
Attachment "5"
955
Item8.
Hamilton Lane Escondido Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
48 / 75
SingleFamilyHousing
— — — — — — — — — — 1.79 0.00 1.79 0.18 0.00 — 6.26
Total — — — — — — — — — — 1.79 0.00 1.79 0.18 0.00 — 6.26Daily,Winter(Max) —————————————————
SingleFamilyHousing
— — — — — — — — — — 1.79 0.00 1.79 0.18 0.00 — 6.26
Total — — — — — — — — — — 1.79 0.00 1.79 0.18 0.00 — 6.26Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —SingleFamilyHousing — — — — — — — — — — 0.30 0.00 0.30 0.03 0.00 — 1.04
Total — — — — — — — — — — 0.30 0.00 0.30 0.03 0.00 — 1.04
4.5.2. MitigatedCriteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) LandUse
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,Summer(Max)
—————————————————
SingleFamilyHousing
— — — — — — — — — — 1.79 0.00 1.79 0.18 0.00 — 6.26
Total — — — — — — — — — — 1.79 0.00 1.79 0.18 0.00 — 6.26Daily,Winter(Max) —————————————————
SingleFamilyHousing
— — — — — — — — — — 1.79 0.00 1.79 0.18 0.00 — 6.26
Exhibit C
Attachment "5"
956
Item8.
Hamilton Lane Escondido Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
49 / 75
Total — — — — — — — — — — 1.79 0.00 1.79 0.18 0.00 — 6.26 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —SingleFamilyHousing — — — — — — — — — — 0.30 0.00 0.30 0.03 0.00 — 1.04
Total — — — — — — — — — — 0.30 0.00 0.30 0.03 0.00 — 1.04
4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use4.6.1. UnmitigatedCriteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) LandUse
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,Summer(Max)
—————————————————
SingleFamilyHousing
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.07 0.07
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.07 0.07Daily,Winter(Max) —————————————————
SingleFamilyHousing
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.07 0.07
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.07 0.07Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —SingleFamilyHousing — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.01 0.01
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.01 0.01
Exhibit C
Attachment "5"
957
Item8.
Hamilton Lane Escondido Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
50 / 75
4.6.2. MitigatedCriteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) LandUse
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,Summer(Max)
—————————————————
SingleFamilyHousing
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.07 0.07
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.07 0.07Daily,Winter(Max) —————————————————
SingleFamilyHousing
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.07 0.07
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.07 0.07Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —SingleFamilyHousing — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.01 0.01
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.01 0.01
4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type4.7.1. UnmitigatedCriteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) EquipmentType
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Exhibit C
Attachment "5"
958
Item8.
Hamilton Lane Escondido Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
51 / 75
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Daily,
Summer(Max)
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Daily,Winter(Max) —————————————————
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.7.2. MitigatedCriteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) EquipmentType
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,Summer(Max)
—————————————————
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Daily,Winter(Max) —————————————————
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type4.8.1. UnmitigatedCriteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Exhibit C
Attachment "5"
959
Item8.
Hamilton Lane Escondido Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
52 / 75
CO2e R N2O CH4 CO2T NBCO2 BCO2 PM2.5T PM2.5D PM2.5E PM10T PM10D PM10E SO2 CO NOx ROG Equipme nt
Daily,Summer(Max)
—————————————————
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Daily,Winter(Max) —————————————————
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.8.2. MitigatedCriteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) EquipmentType
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,Summer(Max)
—————————————————
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Daily,Winter(Max) —————————————————
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type4.9.1. Unmitigated Exhibit C
Attachment "5"
960
Item8.
Hamilton Lane Escondido Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
53 / 75
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) EquipmentType
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,Summer(Max)
—————————————————
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Daily,Winter(Max) —————————————————
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.9.2. MitigatedCriteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) EquipmentType
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,Summer(Max)
—————————————————
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Daily,Winter(Max) —————————————————
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type
Exhibit C
Attachment "5"
961
Item8.
Hamilton Lane Escondido Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
54 / 75
4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - UnmitigatedCriteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetation
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,Summer(Max)
—————————————————
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Daily,Winter(Max) —————————————————
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - UnmitigatedCriteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) LandUse
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,Summer(Max)
—————————————————
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Daily,Winter(Max) —————————————————
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated Exhibit C
Attachment "5"
962
Item8.
Hamilton Lane Escondido Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
55 / 75
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2eDaily,Summer(Max) —————————————————
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Sequestered —————————————————
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Removed
—————————————————
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — ———————————————————Daily,Winter(Max) —————————————————
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Sequestered —————————————————
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Removed
—————————————————
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — ———————————————————Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Sequestered —————————————————
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Exhibit C
Attachment "5"
963
Item8.
Hamilton Lane Escondido Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
56 / 75
Remove — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — ———————————————————
4.10.4. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - MitigatedCriteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetation
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,Summer(Max)
—————————————————
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Daily,Winter(Max) —————————————————
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.10.5. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - MitigatedCriteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) LandUse
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,Summer(Max)
—————————————————
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Daily,Winter(Max) —————————————————
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Exhibit C
Attachment "5"
964
Item8.
Hamilton Lane Escondido Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
57 / 75
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.10.6. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - MitigatedCriteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2eDaily,Summer(Max) —————————————————
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Sequestered —————————————————
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Removed
—————————————————
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — ———————————————————Daily,Winter(Max) —————————————————
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Sequestered —————————————————
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Removed
—————————————————
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — ———————————————————Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Exhibit C
Attachment "5"
965
Item8.
Hamilton Lane Escondido Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
58 / 75
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequestered
—————————————————
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Removed
—————————————————
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — ———————————————————
5. Activity Data5.1. Construction Schedule
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Days Per Week Work Days per Phase Phase DescriptionDemolition Demolition 3/2/2026 3/30/2026 5.00 20.0 —Site Preparation Site Preparation 3/31/2026 4/2/2026 5.00 2.00 —Grading Grading 4/3/2026 4/8/2026 5.00 4.00 —Building Construction Building Construction 4/9/2026 1/14/2027 5.00 200 —Paving Paving 1/15/2027 1/29/2027 5.00 10.0 —Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 1/30/2027 2/13/2027 5.00 10.0 —
5.2. Off-Road Equipment5.2.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load FactorDemolition Concrete/Industrial Saws
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 33.0 0.73
Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40Demolition Tractors/Loaders/Back hoes
Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Exhibit C
Attachment "5"
966
Item8.
Hamilton Lane Escondido Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
59 / 75
Site Preparation Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41 Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 367 0.40Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Back hoes
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Grading Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40Grading Tractors/Loaders/Back hoes
Diesel Average 2.00 7.00 84.0 0.37
Building Construction Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 367 0.29Building Construction Forklifts Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 82.0 0.20Building Construction Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 14.0 0.74Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Back hoes
Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 84.0 0.37
Building Construction Welders Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 46.0 0.45Paving Cement and Mortar Mixers
Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 10.0 0.56
Paving Pavers Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 81.0 0.42Paving Paving Equipment Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 89.0 0.36Paving Rollers Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 36.0 0.38Paving Tractors/Loaders/Back hoes
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Architectural Coating Air Compressors Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 37.0 0.48
5.2.2. Mitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load FactorDemolition Concrete/Industrial Saws
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 33.0 0.73
Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40Demolition Tractors/Loaders/Back hoes
Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Site Preparation Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41 Exhibit C
Attachment "5"
967
Item8.
Hamilton Lane Escondido Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
60 / 75
Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 367 0.40 Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Grading Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40Grading Tractors/Loaders/Back hoes
Diesel Average 2.00 7.00 84.0 0.37
Building Construction Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 367 0.29Building Construction Forklifts Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 82.0 0.20Building Construction Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 14.0 0.74Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Back hoes
Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 84.0 0.37
Building Construction Welders Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 46.0 0.45Paving Cement and Mortar Mixers
Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 10.0 0.56
Paving Pavers Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 81.0 0.42Paving Paving Equipment Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 89.0 0.36Paving Rollers Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 36.0 0.38Paving Tractors/Loaders/Back hoes
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Architectural Coating Air Compressors Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 37.0 0.48
5.3. Construction Vehicles5.3.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle MixDemolition ————Demolition Worker 12.5 12.0 LDA,LDT1,LDT2Demolition Vendor — 7.63 HHDT,MHDTDemolition Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT Exhibit C
Attachment "5"
968
Item8.
Hamilton Lane Escondido Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
61 / 75
Demolition Onsite truck — — HHDT
Site Preparation ————Site Preparation Worker 7.50 12.0 LDA,LDT1,LDT2Site Preparation Vendor — 7.63 HHDT,MHDTSite Preparation Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDTSite Preparation Onsite truck — — HHDTGrading ————Grading Worker 10.0 12.0 LDA,LDT1,LDT2Grading Vendor — 7.63 HHDT,MHDTGrading Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDTGrading Onsite truck — — HHDTBuilding Construction ————Building Construction Worker 1.80 12.0 LDA,LDT1,LDT2Building Construction Vendor 0.53 7.63 HHDT,MHDTBuilding Construction Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDTBuilding Construction Onsite truck — — HHDTPaving— — — —Paving Worker 12.5 12.0 LDA,LDT1,LDT2Paving Vendor — 7.63 HHDT,MHDTPaving Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDTPaving Onsite truck — — HHDTArchitectural Coating ————Architectural Coating Worker 0.36 12.0 LDA,LDT1,LDT2Architectural Coating Vendor — 7.63 HHDT,MHDTArchitectural Coating Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDTArchitectural Coating Onsite truck — — HHDT
5.3.2. Mitigated
Exhibit C
Attachment "5"
969
Item8.
Hamilton Lane Escondido Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
62 / 75
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Demolition ————Demolition Worker 12.5 12.0 LDA,LDT1,LDT2Demolition Vendor — 7.63 HHDT,MHDTDemolition Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDTDemolition Onsite truck — — HHDTSite Preparation ————Site Preparation Worker 7.50 12.0 LDA,LDT1,LDT2Site Preparation Vendor — 7.63 HHDT,MHDTSite Preparation Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDTSite Preparation Onsite truck — — HHDTGrading ————Grading Worker 10.0 12.0 LDA,LDT1,LDT2Grading Vendor — 7.63 HHDT,MHDTGrading Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDTGrading Onsite truck — — HHDTBuilding Construction ————Building Construction Worker 1.80 12.0 LDA,LDT1,LDT2Building Construction Vendor 0.53 7.63 HHDT,MHDTBuilding Construction Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDTBuilding Construction Onsite truck — — HHDTPaving— — — —Paving Worker 12.5 12.0 LDA,LDT1,LDT2Paving Vendor — 7.63 HHDT,MHDTPaving Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDTPaving Onsite truck — — HHDTArchitectural Coating ————Architectural Coating Worker 0.36 12.0 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 Exhibit C
Attachment "5"
970
Item8.
Hamilton Lane Escondido Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
63 / 75
Architectural Coating Vendor — 7.63 HHDT,MHDT
Architectural Coating Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDTArchitectural Coating Onsite truck — — HHDT
5.4. Vehicles5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control StrategiesNon-applicable. No control strategies activated by user.5.5. Architectural Coatings Phase Name Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Residential Exterior AreaCoated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Interior AreaCoated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior AreaCoated (sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
Architectural Coating 19,744 6,581 0.00 0.00 —
5.6. Dust Mitigation5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities Phase Name Material Imported (cy) Material Exported (cy) Acres Graded (acres) Material Demolished (sq. ft.) Acres Paved (acres)Demolition 0.00 0.00 0.00 — —Site Preparation — — 1.88 0.00 —Grading — — 4.00 0.00 —Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06
5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
Control Strategies Applied Frequency (per day) PM10 Reduction PM2.5 ReductionWater Exposed Area 2 61% 61%
5.7. Construction Paving
Exhibit C
Attachment "5"
971
Item8.
Hamilton Lane Escondido Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
64 / 75
Land Use Area Paved (acres) % Asphalt
Single Family Housing 0.06 0%
5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions FactorskWh per Year and Emission Factor (lb/MWh) Year kWh per Year CO2 CH4 N2O2026 0.00 589 0.03 < 0.0052027 0.00 589 0.03 < 0.005
5.9. Operational Mobile Sources5.9.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Year VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/YearSingle FamilyHousing
47.2 47.7 42.8 17,022 443 447 401 159,641
5.9.2. Mitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Year VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/YearSingle FamilyHousing
47.2 47.7 42.8 17,022 443 447 401 159,641
5.10. Operational Area Sources5.10.1. Hearths5.10.1.1. Unmitigated5.10.1.2. Mitigated Exhibit C
Attachment "5"
972
Item8.
Hamilton Lane Escondido Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
65 / 75
5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
Residential Interior Area Coated (sqft)
Residential Exterior Area Coated (sqft)
Non-Residential Interior Area Coated(sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior AreaCoated (sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
19743.75 6,581 0.00 0.00 —
5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
Season Unit ValueSnow Days day/yr 0.00Summer Days day/yr 180
5.10.4. Landscape Equipment - Mitigated
Season Unit ValueSnow Days day/yr 0.00Summer Days day/yr 180
5.11. Operational Energy Consumption5.11.1. UnmitigatedElectricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr)Single Family Housing 30,706 589 0.0330 0.0040 142,585
5.11.2. MitigatedElectricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr)Single Family Housing 30,706 589 0.0330 0.0040 142,585 Exhibit C
Attachment "5"
973
Item8.
Hamilton Lane Escondido Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
66 / 75
5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption5.12.1. Unmitigated Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year)Single Family Housing 175,665 1,069,677
5.12.2. Mitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year)Single Family Housing 140,532 855,741
5.13. Operational Waste Generation5.13.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)Single Family Housing 3.32 —
5.13.2. Mitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)Single Family Housing 3.32 —
5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment5.14.1. Unmitigated Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times ServicedSingle Family Housing Average room A/C & Other residential A/Cand heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 2.50 2.50 10.0
Exhibit C
Attachment "5"
974
Item8.
Hamilton Lane Escondido Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
67 / 75
1.00 0.00 0.60 0.12 1,430 R-134a Single Family Housing Household refrigerators and/orfreezers
5.14.2. Mitigated
Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times ServicedSingle Family Housing Average room A/C & Other residential A/Cand heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 2.50 2.50 10.0
Single Family Housing Household
refrigerators and/orfreezers
R-134a 1,430 0.12 0.60 0.00 1.00
5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment5.15.1. Unmitigated Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor
5.15.2. Mitigated
Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor
5.16. Stationary Sources5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps Equipment Type Fuel Type Number per Day Hours per Day Hours per Year Horsepower Load Factor
5.16.2. Process Boilers
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number Boiler Rating (MMBtu/hr) Daily Heat Input (MMBtu/day) Annual Heat Input (MMBtu/yr) Exhibit C
Attachment "5"
975
Item8.
Hamilton Lane Escondido Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
68 / 75
5.17. User Defined
Equipment Type Fuel Type
5.18. Vegetation5.18.1. Land Use Change5.18.1.1. Unmitigated Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres
5.18.1.2. Mitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres
5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres
5.18.1.2. Mitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres
5.18.2. Sequestration5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)
5.18.2.2. Mitigated
Exhibit C
Attachment "5"
976
Item8.
Hamilton Lane Escondido Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
69 / 75
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)
6. Climate Risk Detailed Report6.1. Climate Risk SummaryCal-Adapt midcentury 2040–2059 average projections for four hazards are reported below for your project location. These are under Representation Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5 whichassumes GHG emissions will continue to rise strongly through 2050 and then plateau around 2100.
Climate Hazard Result for Project Location UnitTemperature and Extreme Heat 15.7 annual days of extreme heatExtreme Precipitation 5.10 annual days with precipitation above 20 mmSea Level Rise — meters of inundation depthWildfire 8.89 annual hectares burned Temperature and Extreme Heat data are for grid cell in which your project are located. The projection is based on the 98th historical percentile of daily maximum/minimum temperatures fromobserved historical data (32 climate model ensemble from Cal-Adapt, 2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.Extreme Precipitation data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The threshold of 20 mm is equivalent to about ¾ an inch of rain, which would be light to moderate rainfall ifreceived over a full day or heavy rain if received over a period of 2 to 4 hours. Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.Sea Level Rise data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from Radke et al. (2017), as reported in Cal-Adapt (Radke et al., 2017, CEC-500-2017-008), andconsider inundation location and depth for the San Francisco Bay, the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and California coast resulting different increments of sea level rise coupled withextreme storm events. Users may select from four scenarios to view the range in potential inundation depth for the grid cell. The four scenarios are: No rise, 0.5 meter, 1.0 meter, 1.41 metersWildfire data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from UC Davis, as reported in Cal-Adapt (2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5), and consider historical dataof climate, vegetation, population density, and large (> 400 ha) fire history. Users may select from four model simulations to view the range in potential wildfire probabilities for the grid cell. Thefour simulations make different assumptions about expected rainfall and temperature are: Warmer/drier (HadGEM2-ES), Cooler/wetter (CNRM-CM5), Average conditions (CanESM2), Range ofdifferent rainfall and temperature possibilities (MIROC5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability ScoreTemperature and Extreme Heat N/A N/A N/A N/AExtreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/ASea Level Rise N/A N/A N/A N/AWildfire N/A N/A N/A N/AFlooding N/A N/A N/A N/ADrought N/A N/A N/A N/A Exhibit C
Attachment "5"
977
Item8.
Hamilton Lane Escondido Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
70 / 75
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation N/A N/A N/A N/A
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing thegreatest exposure.The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5representing the greatest ability to adapt.The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores do not include implementation of climate risk reductionmeasures.6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability ScoreTemperature and Extreme Heat N/A N/A N/A N/AExtreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/ASea Level Rise N/A N/A N/A N/AWildfire N/A N/A N/A N/AFlooding N/A N/A N/A N/ADrought N/A N/A N/A N/ASnowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/AAir Quality Degradation N/A N/A N/A N/A The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing thegreatest exposure.The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5representing the greatest ability to adapt.The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores include implementation of climate risk reductionmeasures.6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures7. Health and Equity Details7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 ScoresThe maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state.
Exhibit C
Attachment "5"
978
Item8.
Hamilton Lane Escondido Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
71 / 75
Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Exposure Indicators —AQ-Ozone 50.5AQ-PM 15.4AQ-DPM 58.2Drinking Water 60.0Lead Risk Housing 6.84Pesticides 57.7Toxic Releases 10.6Traffic 80.1Effect Indicators —CleanUp Sites 78.7Groundwater 60.4Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 0.00Impaired Water Bodies 93.4Solid Waste 35.7Sensitive Population —Asthma 7.05Cardio-vascular 45.0Low Birth Weights 4.54Socioeconomic Factor Indicators —Education 15.2Housing 21.6Linguistic 22.9Poverty 4.02Unemployment 8.69
7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores
Exhibit C
Attachment "5"
979
Item8.
Hamilton Lane Escondido Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
72 / 75
The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.
Indicator Result for Project Census TractEconomic —Above Poverty 92.64724753Employed 58.62953933Median HI 90.27332221Education —Bachelor's or higher 78.6603362High school enrollment 100Preschool enrollment 67.35531888Transportation —Auto Access 98.98626973Active commuting 12.51122803Social —2-parent households 98.40882844Voting 98.8836135Neighborhood —Alcohol availability 87.56576415Park access 35.44206339Retail density 26.84460413Supermarket access 21.57064032Tree canopy 71.57705633Housing —Homeownership 97.12562556Housing habitability 99.51238291Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden 84.98652637Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden 99.08892596Uncrowded housing 85.268831Health Outcomes — Exhibit C
Attachment "5"
980
Item8.
Hamilton Lane Escondido Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
73 / 75
Insured adults 95.534454
Arthritis 2.5Asthma ER Admissions 91.6High Blood Pressure 4.8Cancer (excluding skin) 2.0Asthma 80.2Coronary Heart Disease 5.6Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 29.1Diagnosed Diabetes 36.9Life Expectancy at Birth 82.2Cognitively Disabled 87.2Physically Disabled 85.5Heart Attack ER Admissions 83.2Mental Health Not Good 87.0Chronic Kidney Disease 10.6Obesity 74.1Pedestrian Injuries 19.6Physical Health Not Good 66.1Stroke 26.0Health Risk Behaviors —Binge Drinking 71.2Current Smoker 89.7No Leisure Time for Physical Activity 77.2Climate Change Exposures —Wildfire Risk 10.8SLR Inundation Area 0.0Children 95.8Elderly 9.2 Exhibit C
Attachment "5"
981
Item8.
Hamilton Lane Escondido Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
74 / 75
English Speaking 67.3
Foreign-born 29.8Outdoor Workers 56.8Climate Change Adaptive Capacity —Impervious Surface Cover 87.0Traffic Density 88.6Traffic Access 50.8Other Indices —Hardship 9.9Other Decision Support —2016 Voting 98.1
7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
Metric Result for Project Census TractCalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score for Project Location (a) 12.0Healthy Places Index Score for Project Location (b) 91.0Project Located in a Designated Disadvantaged Community (Senate Bill 535) NoProject Located in a Low-Income Community (Assembly Bill 1550) NoProject Located in a Community Air Protection Program Community (Assembly Bill 617) No a: The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state.b: The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.7.4. Health & Equity MeasuresNo Health & Equity Measures selected.7.5. Evaluation ScorecardHealth & Equity Evaluation Scorecard not completed.7.6. Health & Equity Custom MeasuresNo Health & Equity Custom Measures created.
Exhibit C
Attachment "5"
982
Item8.
Hamilton Lane Escondido Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
75 / 75
8. User Changes to Default Data
Screen JustificationOperations: Hearths No fireplaces or wood stoves Exhibit C
Attachment "5"
983
Item8.
Appendix B - Biological Resources
Memorandum
Attachment
Exhibit C
"5"
984
Item8.